# Understanding and Mitigating Premature Confidence for Better LLM Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24396 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.24396/

## 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.

## 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, 21 of 21)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [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)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15758/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08679/) (2025)
- [Optimizing Test-Time Compute via Meta Reinforcement Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07572/) (2025)
- [Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18512/) (2023)
- [On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10625/) (2024)
- [The Reasoning Boundary Paradox: How Reinforcement Learning Constrains Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.02230/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.09898/) (2026)
- [Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27768/) (2026)
- [Learning to Stop without Learning to Stop: Self-Supervised Confidence Training Improves Reasoning Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.31619/) (2026)
- [DeepRewind: Predicting and Repairing Premature Commitments in Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36344/) (2026)
- [The belief-action gap in language model agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17444/) (2026)

## 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.