Calibration Drift Under Reasoning: How Chain-of-Thought Budgets Induce Overconfidence in Large Language Models
Quick Answer
The study reveals that increasing reasoning budgets in large language models like Llama-3.1-8B can lead to Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR), causing overconfidence in incorrect answers.
Quick Take
The study reveals that increasing reasoning budgets in large language models like Llama-3.1-8B can lead to Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR), causing overconfidence in incorrect answers. This non-monotonic calibration behavior highlights the need for careful monitoring of reasoning depth to ensure reliability.
Key Points
- Increasing reasoning budgets can cause systematic overconfidence in LLMs.
- Llama-3.1-8B exhibited non-monotonic calibration behavior across 47 reasoning-trap questions.
- Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR) occurs when reasoning exceeds task-specific thresholds.
- CABStop is proposed to halt reasoning when confidence diverges from accuracy estimates.
- Results for Llama-3.3-70B were inconclusive regarding budget-dependent effects.
Paper Resources
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2606. 11211v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment. Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is widely used to improve accuracy and reliability, but its effect on calibration is not fully understood.
We show that this picture is incomplete: in some settings, increasing the reasoning budget beyond a task-specific threshold can cause models to become systematically overconfident, assigning high confidence to incorrect answers. We call this phenomenon Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR) and study it both theoretically and empirically.
We define reasoning budget B and analyze conditions under which Expected Calibration Error ECE(B) follows a non-monotonic pattern: it first decreases as reasoning corrects errors, then increases as longer reasoning produces internally consistent but incorrect explanations. We propose a Hypothesis Lock-In model based on autoregressive generation to explain this behavior. We evaluate Llama-3. 1-8B and Llama-3.
3-70B on 47 reasoning-trap questions across four reasoning budgets and three seeds (1,368 API calls; 574 valid responses). The 8B model shows non-monotonic calibration behavior, while results for the 70B model are limited to baseline evaluation and are inconclusive for budget-dependent effects. We introduce CABStop, a calibration-aware stopping rule that halts reasoning when confidence diverges from an auxiliary accuracy estimate.
These results suggest that increasing reasoning depth does not always improve reliability and should be monitored carefully.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The REFLECT benchmark reveals that current LLM judges are unreliable, achieving below 55% accuracy in evaluating reasoning and evidence use, highlighting the need for improved evaluation methods for deep research agents.