# Confidence Geometry Reveals Trace-Level Correctness in Large Language Model Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16824 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.16824/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 26 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13734/) (2023)
- [INSIDE: LLMs' Internal States Retain the Power of Hallucination Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03744/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09561/) (2022)
- [ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.04326/) (2020)
- [Deep Think with Confidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15260/) (2025)
- [Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.00633/) (2023)
- [A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00559/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) generate not only reasoning text, but also token-level confidence trajectories that record how uncertainty evolves during inference. Whether these trajectories are relevant to reasoning correctness remains unclear. Here we show that confidence trajectories encode a content-agnostic confidence geometry associated with trace-level final-answer correctness. Using only token-level confidence values, without access to the input question, reasoning text, hidden states, or external verifiers, we find that low-dimensional representations of confidence trajectories separate correct from incorrect reasoning traces. Across GSM8K, MATH, and MMLU, this geometric separation is quantitatively linked to downstream predictability: stronger clustering of correct and incorrect traces, measured by the Davies--Bouldin index, consistently corresponds to higher correctness-discrimination AUC. We further show that correctness-related information is enriched in the tail of reasoning, suggesting that late-stage confidence dynamics carry key correctness signals. We propose NeuralConf, a lightweight estimator that learns from confidence trajectories for correctness evaluation. Under a fixed trace budget, NeuralConf-derived scores improve confidence-weighted answer aggregation over majority voting, tail confidence, and other static baselines. These results reveal that LLMs expose trace-intrinsic statistical signals of correctness through their own confidence dynamics, offering a route to improve inference using information already present within generation.