TrAC: Trace-Conditioned Answer Consistency for Efficient Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent reasoning traces that nevertheless lead to incorrect answers, making response-level uncertainty estimation important for abstention, human review, and adaptive compute allocation. Existing approaches generally fall into three categories: passive single-trace methods use token-level confidence signals, sampling-based methods compare multiple complete traces at higher generation cost, and active prefix-based methods probe partial traces to study answer stabilization or preference transitions. However, none actively re-elicits an answer from a completed reasoning trace to measure its consistency with and support for the original answer. To address this gap, we introduce Trace-Conditioned Answer Consistency (TrAC), a correctness-supervised uncertainty quantification framework that combines active and passive signals anchored to one completed reasoning trace. Its active component, Prefix-Conditioned Elicitation (PCE), re-elicits a short answer conditioned on the completed trace and represents both its consistency with the original answer and its token-level probabilistic support. Its passive component, Trace Uncertainty Profile (TUP), summarizes how token-level uncertainty evolves throughout the original generation without additional decoding. A lightweight head then integrates the two representations into a response-correctness score. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and three LLM families, TrAC improves macro AUROC by 1.8% and reduces AURC by 3.4% relative to eight-sample self-consistency, while using one complete reasoning trace and a short cached answer probe. When eight samples are already available, augmenting sample consensus with re-elicitation further improves macro AUROC by 4.3% and reduces AURC by 8.3%, without additional full-trace generation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 20 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.
Builds on
20 of 31 references.
Closest ancestors · 7
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Inference Time Optimization with Confidence Dynamics24 May
- 2026When Does a Language Model Commit? A Finite-Answer Theory of Pre-Verbalization Commitment7 May
- 2026SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio7 Apr
- 2026How Reliable are Confidence Estimators for Large Reasoning Models? A Systematic Benchmark on High-Stakes Domains13 Jan
- 2025Deep Think with Confidence21 Aug
- 2025Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty25 Feb
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know11 Jul
Other references · 13
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
- 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2024OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problemscited by 1,099
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 731
- 2024Phi-4 Technical Reportcited by 675
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 644
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Probability is Not Enough: Exploring and Counting Divergent Tokens for Reasoning Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs
- 2026ChainUQ: Reasoning Consistency-Aware Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models
- 2024MAQA: Evaluating Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs Regarding Data Uncertainty
- 2026Uncertainty-Aware Abstention in Large Language Models with Provable Alignment Guarantees
- 2026Semantic Calibration Prevails Where Token Confidence Fails: Benchmarking Long-Form Scientific QA
- 2026SAGE: Answer-Conditioned Uncertainty Targets for Verbal Uncertainty Alignment
- 2026Complementing Self-Consistency with Cross-Model Disagreement for Uncertainty Quantification
- 2025CoT-UQ: Improving Response-wise Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs with Chain-of-Thought