Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates how uncertainty estimation scales with parallel sampling in reasoning language models using verbalized confidence and self-consistency. They find that while both signals improve with increased sampling, self-consistency initially lags behind verbalized confidence in discrimination. Crucially, combining both signals with as few as two samples yields significant gains in AUROC, outperforming either signal alone even with larger sampling budgets, particularly in mathematics.
Two heads are better than one: combining verbalized confidence and self-consistency with just two samples dramatically boosts uncertainty estimation in reasoning models, beating either signal alone even with much larger sampling budgets.
Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying reasoning language models, yet remains poorly understood under extended chain-of-thought reasoning. We study parallel sampling as a fully black-box approach using verbalized confidence and self-consistency. Across three reasoning models and 17 tasks spanning mathematics, STEM, and humanities, we characterize how these signals scale. Both self-consistency and verbalized confidence scale in reasoning models, but self-consistency exhibits lower initial discrimination and lags behind verbalized confidence under moderate sampling. Most uncertainty gains, however, arise from signal combination: with just two samples, a hybrid estimator improves AUROC by up to $+12$ on average and already outperforms either signal alone even when scaled to much larger budgets, after which returns diminish. These effects are domain-dependent: in mathematics, the native domain of RLVR-style post-training, reasoning models achieve higher uncertainty quality and exhibit both stronger complementarity and faster scaling than in STEM or humanities.
