SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Uncertainty estimation for reasoning language models remains difficult to deploy in practice: sampling-based methods are computationally expensive, while common single-pass proxies such as verbalized confidence or trace length are often inconsistent across models. This problem is compounded for proprietary reasoning APIs that expose neither logits nor intermediate token probabilities, leaving practitioners with no reliable uncertainty signal at inference time. We propose SELFDOUBT, a single-pass uncertainty framework that resolves this impasse by extracting behavioral signals directly from the reasoning trace itself. Our key signal, the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio (HVR), detects whether a reasoning trace contains uncertainty markers and, if so, whether they are offset by explicit selfchecking behavior. Unlike methods that require multiple sampled traces or model internals, SELFDOUBT operates on a single observed reasoning trajectory, making it suitable for latency- and cost-constrained deployment over any proprietary API. We evaluate SELFDOUBT across seven models and three multi-step reasoning benchmarks (BBH, GPQA-Diamond, and MMLU-Pro). Most notably, traces containing no hedging markers are correct 96% of the time, revealing an emergent high-precision confidence gate at zero additional cost. For the remaining cases, the full SELFDOUBT score significantly outperforms sampling-based semantic entropy at 10x lower inference cost. A deployment cascade combining both stages attains 90% accuracy at 71% coverage without any task-specific labels. These results establish SELFDOUBT as a scalable, production-ready foundation for uncertainty estimation over proprietary reasoning models.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 22 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2026.
Builds on
22 of 28 references.
Closest ancestors · 7
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Trace Length is a Simple Uncertainty Signal in Reasoning Models12 Oct
- 2025Lexical Hints of Accuracy in LLM Reasoning Chains19 Aug
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card8 Aug
- 2025Read Your Own Mind: Reasoning Helps Surface Self-Confidence Signals in LLMs28 May
- 2025Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidence20 May
- 2025CoT-UQ: Improving Response-wise Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs with Chain-of-Thought24 Feb
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know11 Jul
Other references · 15
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,796
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2024M3-Embedding: Multi-Linguality, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillationcited by 1,073
- 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 819
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
- 2024Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMscited by 259
- 2023MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoningcited by 201
- 2024Latent Space Chain-of-Embedding Enables Output-free LLM Self-Evaluationcited by 57
- 2025Understanding the Uncertainty of LLM Explanations: A Perspective Based on Reasoning Topologycited by 25
3 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026TrAC: Trace-Conditioned Answer Consistency for Efficient Uncertainty Quantification in LLMscited by 0
- 2026Confidently Wrong, Silently So: Auditing Undetectable Failures of a Deployed On-Device Language Modelcited by 0
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Studycited by 0
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study7 Sep 2026
- 2026Confidently Wrong, Silently So: Auditing Undetectable Failures of a Deployed On-Device Language Model24 Aug 2026
- 2026TrAC: Trace-Conditioned Answer Consistency for Efficient Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs1 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Verbalized Confidence Triggers Self-Verification: Emergent Behavior Without Explicit Reasoning Supervision
- 2026Probability is Not Enough: Exploring and Counting Divergent Tokens for Reasoning Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs
- 2025TokUR: Token-Level Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Model Reasoning
- 2026How Uncertainty Estimation Scales with Sampling in Reasoning Models
- 2025Grammars of Formal Uncertainty: When to Trust LLMs in Automated Reasoning Tasks
- 2026Unsupervised Confidence Calibration for Reasoning LLMs from a Single Generation
- 2025Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?
- 2026Improving reasoning at inference time via uncertainty minimisation