Understanding and Mitigating Premature Confidence for Better LLM Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute. Improving reasoning quality directly would require process reward models, but the step-level annotations needed to train them are expensive and scarce. We find such a signal in how the model's confidence evolves during reasoning: premature confidence, the tendency to commit to an answer early and use the remaining tokens to rationalize it, strongly predicts flawed reasoning across tasks and model scales. We exploit this in progressive confidence shaping, a reinforcement learning objective that trains models to update their confidence as they reason rather than commit early -- rewarding gradual confidence growth and penalizing early commitment, with no external labels or reward models. The method improves accuracy and reasoning quality from 1.5B to 8B parameters across arithmetic (Countdown), math (DAPO, AIME), and science (ScienceQA): on Countdown, accuracy improves 3.2x (+42.0pp) and flawed reasoning drops 48pp; on AIME, Pass@64 improves 6.6pp. Consistent with this mechanism, the method also improves faithfulness: on a safety benchmark, our models more transparently surface misleading content in their reasoning traces rather than concealing it. Controlled experiments reveal that the problem and its remedy scale together: premature confidence grows with model size and task difficulty, and so do the gains from addressing it.
Key facts. Cited by 5 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 21 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2026.
Builds on
21 of 37 references.
References · 21
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
- 2024Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvementcited by 1,090
- 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
9 more
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 415
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
- 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Modelscited by 191
- 2025Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithfulcited by 170
- 2025Optimizing Test-Time Compute via Meta Reinforcement Fine-Tuningcited by 123
- 2023Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoningcited by 65
- 2024On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 43
- 2025The Reasoning Boundary Paradox: How Reinforcement Learning Constrains Language Modelscited by 18
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scalingcited by 0
- 2026Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Learning to Stop without Learning to Stop: Self-Supervised Confidence Training Improves Reasoning Efficiencycited by 0
- 2026DeepRewind: Predicting and Repairing Premature Commitments in Deep Research Agentscited by 0
- 2026The belief-action gap in language model agentscited by 0
- 2026The belief-action gap in language model agents12 Oct 2026
- 2026DeepRewind: Predicting and Repairing Premature Commitments in Deep Research Agents28 Sep 2026
- 2026Learning to Stop without Learning to Stop: Self-Supervised Confidence Training Improves Reasoning Efficiency25 Sep 2026
- 2026Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models27 Aug 2026
- 2026Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling10 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidence
- 2026Early Stopping for Large Reasoning Models via Confidence Dynamics
- 2026When Confidence Rises Too Early: Detecting Shortcut Reasoning via Premature Answer Commitment
- 2025Think Just Enough: Sequence-Level Entropy as a Confidence Signal for LLM Reasoning
- 2026Post-Training Shifts Confidence: A Three-Stage Analysis of How SFT, RL, and OPD Shape CoT Calibration
- 2025Let the Model Distribute Its Doubt: Confidence Estimation through Verbalized Probability Distribution
- 2025Confidence as a Reward: Transforming LLMs into Reward Models
- 2025Trustworthy Reasoning: Evaluating and Enhancing Factual Accuracy in LLM Intermediate Thought Processes