# Calibration, Not Answer Selection: Distilling Internal Confidence in Reasoning Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.33290 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33290/

## 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 56 of its 63 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 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, 30 of 56)

- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [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)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.01644/) (2016)
- [Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03341/) (2023)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06824/) (2023)
- [The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13734/) (2023)
- [GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15763/) (2026)
- [Measuring short-form factuality in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04368/) (2024)
- [SWIFT:A Scalable lightWeight Infrastructure for Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05517/) (2024)
- [Beyond Human Data: Scaling Self-Training for Problem-Solving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06585/) (2023)
- [Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15927/) (2024)
- [Gemma 4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02770/) (2026)
- [LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02707/) (2024)
- [Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.14983/) (2020)
- [Reasoning Models Know When They're Right: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05419/) (2025)
- [Simple Entity-Centric Questions Challenge Dense Retrievers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.08535/) (2021)
- [Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.16806/) (2025)
- [Ministral 3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08584/) (2026)
- [SaySelf: Teaching LLMs to Express Confidence with Self-Reflective Rationales](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20974/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning with binary correctness rewards trains correctness, not calibrated confidence. The confidence that reasoning models verbalize is systematically overconfident, and the problem is not merely one of scale: verbalized confidence tracks how willing a model is to commit to an answer, not how likely the answer is to be right. Post-hoc rescaling therefore fits one distribution but rarely transfers. We look inside the model instead. On factual question answering, a linear probe on the hidden state between the chain of thought and the answer is substantially better calibrated: its expected calibration error is 5 to 38 times lower than that of the verbalized score across four benchmarks and two model families. However, when used to pick among N sampled answers, that same probe nearly ties majority voting yet falls far short of the oracle. Internal states answer "how certain am I" well and "which answer is right" poorly, so the signal should be reported as a confidence rather than used to select answers. As a result, we introduce probe-guided self-distillation (Probe-SD): score a model's own sampled traces with the probe, overwrite the confidence each trace states, and finetune the base checkpoint of the same family, so nothing but the model itself remains at test time. On Qwen3-14B, Probe-SD cuts ECE from 0.178 to 0.024 in-domain and from 0.542 to 0.113 out-of-domain, where it also beats post-hoc recalibration and self-consistency distillation. The resulting confidence is well-calibrated and useful for weighted voting, behaviors previously attributed to online RL, here obtained with supervised finetuning alone.