Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Reasoning models are overconfident, and thinking longer makes them more so — but a critical second pass can recalibrate some of them.

desk verdict A useful first systematic look at calibration in RL-trained reasoning models, with a genuinely new finding about inference-time scaling and a solid but not airtight introspection result; worth refereeing after fixes to the statistics and the trace-fidelity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18183 v3 pith:NDWUQGAF submitted 2025-06-22 cs.AI cs.CL

Zhiting Mei , Christina Zhang , Tenny Yin , Justin Lidard , Ola Shorinwa , Anirudha Majumdar This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords reasoningmodelsuncertaintyquantificationcalibrationexpectederrorintrospectiveself-verbalizedconfidenceinference-timescalinghallucination
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Reasoning language models — AI systems trained to work through problems step by step — often report confidence above 85 percent even when their answers are wrong, and this paper sets out to measure how bad that miscalibration is and whether it can be fixed without retraining. It reports three findings: reasoning models are typically overconfident; giving them more time to reason makes them even more overconfident on questions they get wrong; and a two-stage "introspective" prompt, in which a fresh model pass reads the first pass's reasoning trace and looks for flaws, improves calibration for o3-Mini and DeepSeek R1 but degrades it for Claude 3.7 Sonnet. If confirmed, the result gives system builders a no-retraining lever for improving confidence estimates from closed models, and it shows that inference-time scaling carries a calibration cost that current benchmarks hide.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is introspective uncertainty quantification (introspective UQ), a two-stage self-verbalized confidence procedure: stage one answers the question with a reasoning trace and a confidence score, and stage two, in a fresh session, reads that trace and returns a revised confidence in the original answer. Three introspection prompts vary in conservativeness: IUQ-Low merely asks the second pass to reason about uncertainty, IUQ-Medium asks it to identify flaws while still showing the first confidence, and IUQ-High asks for flaws with the first confidence withheld. The second stage never revises the answer, by design, to stop the model from vacillating on hard questions. Calibration is measured with expected calibration error (ECE) and maximum calibration error (MCE), bin-wise comparisons of stated confidence against observed accuracy.

What would settle it

Run introspective UQ with the reasoning trace redacted — feed the second stage only the question, the first answer, and the first confidence — and compare ECE against the full-trace condition; if calibration improves just as much without the trace, the paper's claim that reasoning about one's own chain of thought drives the gain is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the confidence statements produced by current reasoning models should not be read at face value, and that calibration defects follow a consistent pattern: overconfidence grows as reasoning effort grows, and overconfidence is concentrated on hard problems. On the remedy side, it claims that asking a second model instance to critique the first instance's chain of thought before issuing a confidence estimate can reduce expected calibration error on hard benchmarks, with more critical prompts (explicitly asking for flaws, and withholding the first confidence) working best. The same procedure is not a universal fix: one of the four models tested, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, becomes more overconfident under introspection, and the paper attributes this to closed implementation details it cannot inspect.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the reasoning trace handed to the second stage is a faithful record of the reasoning that actually produced the first answer and its confidence, and for closed models that trace cannot be verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Confidence scores from reasoning models should be treated as upper bounds on reliability rather than calibrated probabilities, especially on hard or recent benchmarks.
  • Budgeting for inference-time scaling should include a calibration cost: longer thinking can increase accuracy while also pushing confidence further above accuracy on the questions the model still gets wrong.
  • A second, critical pass over a saved reasoning trace is a practical, finetune-free way to recalibrate closed models when the second pass is more conservative, as in IUQ-Medium and IUQ-High.
  • Benchmarks where models already score near ceiling are uninformative for calibration, because high accuracy masks overconfidence; new UQ-specific benchmarks are needed.
  • Prompt strategies that help non-reasoning models (chain-of-thought, multi-step) do not reliably change reasoning-model calibration, so prompt engineering is not a substitute for introspection or retraining.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference beyond the paper: if the exposed traces are faithful, the two-stage procedure could be used to generate calibration labels for fine-tuning, since the second pass produces conservative confidence without needing ground-truth answers.
  • Inference beyond the paper: comparing IUQ variants suggests a testable extension where introspection is staged multiple times, with each pass seeing flaws found by the previous pass, to see whether calibration keeps improving or oscillates.
  • Inference beyond the paper: for closed models, the degradation seen in Claude leaves open the possibility that the sign of introspection's effect depends on how the visible trace relates to the hidden reasoning process, not on any intrinsic property of self-reflection.
  • Inference beyond the paper: a direct measurement of whether second-stage confidence predicts first-stage accuracy better than first-stage confidence does would isolate where the calibration gain comes from.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies calibration of four state-of-the-art reasoning language models (Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, o3-Mini) on five QA benchmarks (ARC-Challenge, GPQA, MMLU, StrategyQA, SimpleQA) using self-verbalized confidence estimates. It reports three main findings: (i) reasoning models are typically overconfident, especially on harder benchmarks; (ii) deeper reasoning improves accuracy but can worsen calibration, making models more confident on incorrect answers; and (iii) a proposed two-stage 'introspective UQ' procedure, where a second model reasons about the first model's reasoning trace and confidence, improves calibration for o3-Mini and DeepSeek R1 but degrades calibration for Claude 3.7 Sonnet. The paper also examines prompt-strategy invariance and the accuracy-calibration correlation.

Significance. If the empirical findings hold, this is a practically useful and timely study: introspective UQ would offer a no-retraining method for reducing overconfidence on hard questions, and the inference-time-scaling calibration cost would be an important consideration for system builders. The paper is commendable for using multiple models and datasets, for fixing the prompt templates as design choices rather than fitting them to the data, and for including extensive reasoning-trace examples in Appendix F that will aid replication. However, the central mechanism claim depends on the faithfulness of elicited reasoning traces, and several quantitative claims lack statistical support, so the current evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Figure 5] The claim of a 'strong negative correlation between accuracy and ECE across all models' rests on five data points per model (one per dataset), with no error bars, repeated runs, or significance tests. For Gemini the reported r = -1 must be treated as an artifact of n = 5 rather than evidence of a perfect monotonic relationship; the same applies to the near-perfect correlations for DeepSeek and o3-Mini. Please provide bootstrap confidence intervals, per-prompt scatter plots, and a permutation test for the Spearman correlation before this correlation is used as a central finding.
  2. [Section 5.4] The reasoning-depth manipulation is not reproducible. The text states that the authors 'estimate the number of thinking tokens corresponding to these levels' for Claude and specify this as a thinking budget, but neither the estimated token counts nor the API parameters (e.g., reasoning_effort for o3-mini) are reported. Because the paper's second finding is precisely that calibration degrades with deeper reasoning after accuracy saturates, the exact operationalization of 'depth' is load-bearing; please report the token budgets for RE-Low/RE-Medium/RE-High, the model-specific mapping, and the average token counts actually consumed.
  3. [Section 5.5 and Appendix A] The introspective mechanism is not established for closed models. For models without native trace access, the authors append 'You must include your reasoning trace in your response' (Appendix A), so the second stage receives a trace that may be a post-hoc summary or confabulation rather than the chain of thought that produced the first-stage answer. Under that alternative, the observed ECE decreases for DeepSeek and o3-Mini would show that a second pass over generated text changes confidence, not that explicit reasoning about one's own thought process improves calibration. This distinction is load-bearing because the method's name, motivation, and the abstract's third claim all rely on the trace being faithful. A concrete test would be, on DeepSeek, comparing introspective UQ using the API-returned native reasoning_content with introspective UQ using the appended-instruction elicited trace; if the improvements persist in both, the text-based mechanism is supported, and if not, the introspection claim needs to be weakened. The attribution of Claude's degradation to 'the implementation details of Claude, which is closed-source' (Section 5.5) should be replaced by this kind of controlled comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equations (3) and (5)] The number of bins M used for ECE and MCE is never specified anywhere in the paper; please state the value of M for all computations. The notation 'conf(Bm)' should also be 'conf(B_m)' for consistency with 'acc(B_m)'.
  2. [Section 5.6 and Appendix E] Claims that prompt strategies do not 'significantly outperform' basic prompting are not backed by significance tests or confidence intervals; please soften the wording to 'we do not observe a consistent advantage' or add appropriate tests.
  3. [Appendix C and Section 5.5] There are several typos: 'relibability' (Appendix C), 'higly' (Figure 4 caption), 'the the reasoning trace' (Section 5.5), and 'positively calibrated' (Section 7), which appears to mean 'positively correlated with accuracy'.
  4. [General] No code or data release is mentioned; given the API-dependent nature of the experiments, please commit to releasing prompts, raw outputs, and parsing/aggregation scripts to support replication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study's claims are empirical comparisons against benchmark ground truth, with no fitted parameter or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical study, not a derivation: calibration is measured with ECE/MCE against fixed benchmark ground-truth labels, and the introspection prompts (IUQ-Low/Medium/High) are fixed design choices rather than constants fitted to the evaluation data. The central comparisons — reasoning models are overconfident, deeper reasoning increases overconfidence, and introspection improves calibration for some models but not others — are evaluated on held-out benchmark questions, so the results are not forced by construction. The only self-cited work (Shorinwa et al. [40]) is used as background taxonomy in Related Work and does not provide any load-bearing premise, uniqueness theorem, or fitted input. The paper's own caveat that closed models expose their reasoning traces only when prompted (Appendix A) and that Claude's degradation 'may be due to the implementation details of Claude, which is closed-source' (Section 5.5) concerns the faithfulness of the trace as a mechanism, which is a validity assumption, not a circularity in the statistical sense. No step reduces a prediction to its own input by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The evaluation rests on the standard self-verbalized UQ assumption that a model's stated number is a probability, plus an unverified assumption that elicited reasoning traces are faithful. No numerical parameters are fitted from the data; all 'parameters' are methodological choices that are either unstated (ECE bin count, token budgets) or disclosed (K=5, number of stages).

free parameters (2)
  • ECE bin count M = not specified
    The paper defines ECE using M equal-width bins but never states M; all ECE values depend on this choice (Section 3, Eq. 3).
  • Reasoning-effort token budgets for Claude = not reported
    RE-Low/Medium/High are mapped from OpenAI effort levels to Claude thinking-token budgets using an unreported estimate (Section 5.4), which controls the reasoning-depth comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Self-verbalized confidence 'X' in the model's response is a probability estimate comparable across models and prompts.
    Prompt templates request 'confidence between 0 and 100' (Table 1), and Eq. (1) treats this number as a calibrated probability; no validation is provided that the verbalized number is a proper probability.
  • domain assumption The reasoning trace provided to the second stage faithfully represents the model's internal reasoning.
    Appendix A appends 'You must include your reasoning trace in your response' for models without native trace access; closed-source traces cannot be verified.
  • domain assumption Selected benchmark ground-truth answers are deterministic and correct.
    Section 3 restricts to deterministic ground truth; SimpleQA and GPQA answers are taken as given.
  • domain assumption API model versions and sampling behavior are stable across sessions and time.
    All experiments use a single set of API calls with no stated temperature or repetition; variance is not captured.
  • standard math Equal-width binning of confidence scores yields reliable ECE and MCE estimates.
    Section 3 approximates calibration integrals via binning; the paper itself notes that MCE bins with few samples are noisy (Section 5.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDWUQGAF

@misc{pith2026250618183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDWUQGAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18183}
}
read the original abstract

Reasoning language models have set state-of-the-art (SOTA) records on many challenging benchmarks, enabled by multi-step reasoning induced using reinforcement learning. However, like previous language models, reasoning models are prone to generating confident, plausible responses that are incorrect (hallucinations). Knowing when and how much to trust these models is critical to the safe deployment of reasoning models in real-world applications. To this end, we explore uncertainty quantification of reasoning models in this work. Specifically, we ask three fundamental questions: First, are reasoning models well-calibrated? Second, does deeper reasoning improve model calibration? Finally, inspired by humans' innate ability to double-check their thought processes to verify the validity of their answers and their confidence, we ask: can reasoning models improve their calibration by explicitly reasoning about their chain-of-thought traces? We introduce introspective uncertainty quantification (UQ) to explore this direction. In extensive evaluations on SOTA reasoning models across a broad range of benchmarks, we find that reasoning models: (i) are typically overconfident, with self-verbalized confidence estimates often greater than 85% particularly for incorrect responses, (ii) become even more overconfident with deeper reasoning, and (iii) can become better calibrated through introspection (e.g., o3-Mini and DeepSeek R1) but not uniformly (e.g., Claude 3.7 Sonnet becomes more poorly calibrated). Lastly, we conclude with important research directions to design necessary UQ benchmarks and improve the calibration of reasoning models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Concise and Adaptive Thinking in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review that categorizes methods for shortening and adaptively triggering chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Semantically diverse language generation for uncertainty estimation in language models

    Lukas Aichberger, Kajetan Schweighofer, Mykyta Ielanskyi, and Sepp Hochreiter. Semantically diverse language generation for uncertainty estimation in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04306 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Claude 3.7 sonnet system card

    Anthropic. Claude 3.7 sonnet system card. Technical report, Anthropic, 2024. URL https://assets.anthropic. com/m/785e231869ea8b3b/original/claude-3-7-sonnet-system-card.pdf

    2024

  3. [3]

    American Invitational Mathematics Examination

    Art of Problem Solving. American Invitational Mathematics Examination. https://artofproblemsolving.com/ wiki/index.php/American_Invitational_Mathematics_Examination, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    The internal state of an llm knows when it’s lying.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734, 2023

    Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. The internal state of an llm knows when it’s lying.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Hallucination of multimodal large language models: A survey

    Zechen Bai, Pichao Wang, Tianjun Xiao, Tong He, Zongbo Han, Zheng Zhang, and Mike Zheng Shou. Hallucination of multimodal large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18930 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances

    Yonatan Belinkov. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics , 48(1): 207–219, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 17682–17690, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

Show all 144 references
  1. [9]

    Transcoders find interpretable llm feature circuits

    Jacob Dunefsky, Philippe Chlenski, and Neel Nanda. Transcoders find interpretable llm feature circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11944, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncertainty quantification

    Ekaterina Fadeeva, Aleksandr Rubashevskii, Artem Shelmanov, Sergey Petrakov, Haonan Li, Hamdy Mubarak, Evgenii Tsymbalov, Gleb Kuzmin, Alexander Panchenko, Timothy Baldwin, et al. Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncertainty quantification. arX...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Do i know this entity? knowledge awareness and hallucinations in language models

    Javier Ferrando, Oscar Obeso, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, and Neel Nanda. Do i know this entity? knowledge awareness and hallucinations in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14257 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning

    Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00720 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders

    Leo Gao, Tom Dupr´ e la Tour, Henk Tillman, Gabriel Goh, Rajan Troll, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, and Jeffrey Wu. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04093 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories

    Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14913 , 2020

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies

    Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 9:346–361, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation

    Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E Raftery. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American statistical Association, 102(477):359–378, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Weinberger

    Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Doina Precup and Yee Whye Teh, editors, Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages ...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Reasoning with language model is planning with world model

    Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14992 , 2023. 16

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Llm reasoners: New evaluation, library, and analysis of step-by-step reasoning with large language models

    Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haotian Luo, Tianyang Liu, Xiyan Shao, Xinyuan Wang, Shuhua Xie, Haodi Ma, Adithya Samavedhi, Qiyue Gao, et al. Llm reasoners: New evaluation, library, and analysis of step-by-step reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05221 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Double checking: a second look

    Tanya Hewitt, Samia Chreim, and Alan Forster. Double checking: a second look. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 22(2):267–274, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey

    Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gpt-4o system card

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Openai o1 system card

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hands-on bayesian neural networks—a tutorial for deep learning users

    Laurent Valentin Jospin, Hamid Laga, Farid Boussaid, Wray Buntine, and Mohammed Bennamoun. Hands-on bayesian neural networks—a tutorial for deep learning users. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine , 17(2): 29–48, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Language models (mostly) know what they know

    Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:22199–22213, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation

    Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Introspective planning: Aligning robots’ uncertainty with inherent task ambiguity

    Kaiqu Liang, Zixu Zhang, and Jaime F Fisac. Introspective planning: Aligning robots’ uncertainty with inherent task ambiguity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:71998–72031, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Uncertainty decomposition and quantification for in-context learning of large language models

    Chen Ling, Xujiang Zhao, Wei Cheng, Yanchi Liu, Yiyou Sun, Xuchao Zhang, Mika Oishi, Takao Osaki, Katsushi Matsuda, Jie Ji, et al. Uncertainty decomposition and quantification for in-context learning of large language models. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv–2402, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models

    Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00253 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models

    Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Reducing conversational agents’ overconfidence through linguistic calibration

    Sabrina J Mielke, Arthur Szlam, Emily Dinan, and Y-Lan Boureau. Reducing conversational agents’ overconfidence through linguistic calibration. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 10:857–872, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Codeforces

    Mikhail Mirzayanov and Codeforces Team. Codeforces. https://codeforces.com, 2025. Competitive Program- ming Platform

    2025

  28. [36]

    Naeini, Gregory Cooper, and Milos Hauskrecht

    Mahdi P. Naeini, Gregory Cooper, and Milos Hauskrecht. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 29, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Openai o3-mini system card

    OpenAI. Openai o3-mini system card. Technical report, OpenAI, 2024. URL https://cdn.openai.com/ o3-mini-system-card.pdf

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ren, and Anirudha Majumdar

    Ola Shorinwa, Zhiting Mei, Justin Lidard, Allen Z. Ren, and Anirudha Majumdar. A survey on uncertainty quantification of large language models: Taxonomy, open research challenges, and future directions. ACM Comput. Surv., June 2025. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3744238. URL ht...

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning

    Jody M Shynkaruk and Valerie A Thompson. Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Memory & cognition, 34(3):619–632, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Controlling style in generated dialogue

    Eric Michael Smith, Diana Gonzalez-Rico, Emily Dinan, and Y-Lan Boureau. Controlling style in generated dialogue. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10855 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Codebook features: Sparse and discrete inter- pretability for neural networks

    Alex Tamkin, Mohammad Taufeeque, and Noah D Goodman. Codebook features: Sparse and discrete inter- pretability for neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17230 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Quantifying uncertainty in natural language explanations of large language models

    Sree Harsha Tanneru, Chirag Agarwal, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. Quantifying uncertainty in natural language explanations of large language models. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 1072–1080. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context

    Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, March 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, March 2025. URL https://qwenlm. github.io/blog/qwq-32b/

    2025

  39. [47]

    Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback

    Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv preprint a...

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Measuring short-form factuality in large language models

    Jason Wei, Nguyen Karina, Hyung Won Chung, Yunxin Joy Jiao, Spencer Papay, Amelia Glaese, John Schulman, and William Fedus. Measuring short-form factuality in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04368 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Reasoning or reciting? exploring the capabilities and limitations of language models through counterfactual tasks

    Zhaofeng Wu, Linlu Qiu, Alexis Ross, Ekin Aky¨ urek, Boyuan Chen, Bailin Wang, Najoung Kim, Jacob Andreas, and Yoon Kim. Reasoning or reciting? exploring the capabilities and limitations of language models through counterfactual tasks. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of ...

    2024

  44. [52]

    On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation

    Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15025 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Can llms express their uncertainty? an empirical evaluation of confidence elicitation in llms

    Miao Xiong, Zhiyuan Hu, Xinyang Lu, Yifei Li, Jie Fu, Junxian He, and Bryan Hooi. Can llms express their uncertainty? an empirical evaluation of confidence elicitation in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13063 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Transformer visualization via dictionary learning: contextualized embedding as a linear superposition of transformer factors

    Zeyu Yun, Yubei Chen, Bruno A Olshausen, and Yann LeCun. Transformer visualization via dictionary learning: contextualized embedding as a linear superposition of transformer factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15949 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    R-tuning: Instructing large language models to say ‘i don’t know’

    Hanning Zhang, Shizhe Diao, Yong Lin, Yi Fung, Qing Lian, Xingyao Wang, Yangyi Chen, Heng Ji, and Tong Zhang. R-tuning: Instructing large language models to say ‘i don’t know’. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computati...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models

    Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    You must include your reasoning trace in your response,

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Sch¨ arli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625 , 2022. 18 Appendix A Intr...

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    (((3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl)oxy)methyl)benzene + (1. BuLi, 2. H+) —-¿ A

  52. [60]

    3,4,5,7,8,9-hexamethyl-1,11-dimethylene-2,6,10,11,11a,11b-hexahydro-1H-benzo [cd]indeno[7,1-gh]azulene + Heat —¿ B. Options: (A) A = 4-methyl-1-phenylpent-3-en-1-ol B = 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-hexamethyl-5,9,9a,10,11,11a-hexahydro-1H-benzo [3,4]azuleno[1,8,7,6-cdef]fluorene (B) A = (...

  53. [61]

    Analysis of the connectivity shows that nucleophilic attack leads to a five-carbon chain where the benzyl group ends up at one end

    For the first reaction, the starting benzyl allyl ether, ((3 -methylbut-2-en-1-yl)oxy)methylbenzene, under BuLi/H+ conditions undergoes a rearrangement that effectively “umpoled” the benzyl fragment. Analysis of the connectivity shows that nucleophilic attack leads to a five-c...

  54. [62]

    hexahydro

    In the second reaction, the substrate is a highly substituted 1,11-dimethylene system undergoing a Cope rearrangement upon heating. Evaluating the potential rearranged structures, the product retaining a “hexahydro” system – specifically, 2,3,4,6,7,8-hexamethyl-5,9,9a,10,11,11...

  55. [63]

    hexahydro

    Comparing the options, option (C) presents the pair of products that match these conclusions: (Z)-2-methyl-5-phenylpent-2-en-1-ol for product A and the “hexahydro” fluorene derivative for product B

  56. [64]

    {C, 95} IUQ-Low: Here’s my reasoning trace:

    Thus, the reasoning leads to the final choice of option C with high confidence. {C, 95} IUQ-Low: Here’s my reasoning trace:

  57. [65]

    I carefully reviewed the provided explanation of the two reactions and the selection from the answer choices. The explanation shows that the first reaction produces (Z)-2-methyl-5-phenylpent-2-en-1-ol (product A) by the mechanism described and that the Cope rearrangement in th...

  58. [66]

    The explanation correctly distinguishes between the isomeric outcomes by considering stereoelectronic requirements and the substituent pattern, which aligns with option (C)

  59. [67]

    The reasoning steps seem well justified, and the final answer from the first model appears internally consistent and chemically plausible

  60. [68]

    {rec, 95} 28 o3-Mini (Continued) IUQ-Medium: Below is my reasoning trace and final evaluation:

    Based on this, I am highly confident that the first model’s answer is correct with 95 percent certainty. {rec, 95} 28 o3-Mini (Continued) IUQ-Medium: Below is my reasoning trace and final evaluation:

  61. [69]

    Although the idea of a polarity inversion is mentioned, the trace does not detail why the (Z)-isomer is favored over a possible (E)-isomer

    In the first reaction the model argues that the benzyl allyl ether is “umpoled” under BuLi/H + conditions, leading to the formation of (Z)-2-methyl-5-phenylpent-2-en-1-ol. Although the idea of a polarity inversion is mentioned, the trace does not detail why the (Z)-isomer is f...

  62. [70]

    hexahydro

    For the second reaction (the Cope rearrangement), the model simply argues that among potential rearranged structures the one retaining a “hexahydro” framework is more consistent. Again, the reasoning lacks expanded discussion on how subtle changes in unsaturation levels arise ...

  63. [71]

    Although the final chosen option (C) agrees with the general expectations — (Z)-2-methyl-5- phenylpent-2-en-1-ol (for A) and a hexahydro fluorene derivative (for B) — the chain-of-thought omits several detailed mechanistic arguments that would strengthen the case for selection...

  64. [72]

    umpolars

    I examined the given reasoning from the first model. It argues that for reaction A the product should be (Z)-2-methyl-5-phenylpent-2-en-1-ol—this is attributed to a rearrangement pathway initiated by BuLi/H+ that “umpolars” the benzyl fragment. Although a detailed mechanism wa...

  65. [73]

    For reaction B the model argued that the Cope rearrangement of a highly substituted dienic system produces a product that preserves a hexahydro framework, leading to a structure matching 2,3,4,6,7,8-hexamethyl-5,9,9a,10,11,11a-hexahydro-1H-benzo [3,4]azuleno[1,8,7,6-cdef]fluorene

  66. [74]

    hexahydro

    Comparing these two outcomes with the provided multiple-choice options, option (C) exactly matches: A is (Z)-2-methyl-5-phenylpent-2-en-1-ol and B is the “hexahydro” fluorene derivative

  67. [75]

    While the explanation does not detail every mechanistic nuance and leaves some mechanistic assumptions implicit, the overall conclusion appears plausible and consistent with the reaction conditions and structural outcomes described

  68. [76]

    {rec, 80} 29 Claude First round: I need to determine the products of two different reactions

    Thus, my assessment is that the first model’s answer is reasonably substantiated. {rec, 80} 29 Claude First round: I need to determine the products of two different reactions. For the first reaction: (((3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl)oxy)methyl)benzene + 1. BuLi

  69. [77]

    Let’s analyze the starting material: • It’s a benzyl ether of 3-methylbut-2-en-1-ol • Structure: Ph-CH 2-O-CH2-C(CH3)=CH-CH3 The mechanism:

    H + − →A This involves a [2,3]-Wittig rearrangement. Let’s analyze the starting material: • It’s a benzyl ether of 3-methylbut-2-en-1-ol • Structure: Ph-CH 2-O-CH2-C(CH3)=CH-CH3 The mechanism:

  70. [78]

    BuLi deprotonates the benzylic position, creating a carbanion

  71. [79]

    This carbanion undergoes a [2,3]-sigmatropic rearrangement, forming a new C-C bond with the γ-carbon of the allylic system

  72. [80]

    The hydroxyl group forms at the original benzylic position

  73. [81]

    hexahydro

    H + workup gives the final product The product is: Ph-CH(OH)-CH 2-C(CH3)=CH-CH3, which is 4-methyl-1-phenylpent-3-en-1-ol. For the second reaction (Cope rearrangement): • Cope rearrangements are [3,3]-sigmatropic rearrangements of 1,5-dienes • They preserve the degree of unsat...

  74. [82]

    • BuLi deprotonates the benzylic position (Ph-CH 2-O-), forming an anion at the benzylic carbon

    First Reaction ([2,3]-Wittig Rearrangement): • The starting material, (((3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl)oxy)methyl)benzene, is Ph-CH 2-O-CH2- CH=C(CH3)2. • BuLi deprotonates the benzylic position (Ph-CH 2-O-), forming an anion at the benzylic carbon. This is chemically sound, as benzyl...

  75. [83]

    dimethylene

    Second Reaction (Cope Rearrangement): • The starting material, 3,4,5,7,8,9-hexamethyl-1,11-dimethylene -2,6,10,11,11a,11b-hexahydro-1H-benzo[cd]indeno[7,1-gh]azulene, contains a 1,5-diene system (evident from “dimethylene” and “hexahydro”). • Thermal Cope rearrangement is a [3...

  76. [84]

    • Options (B), (C), and (D) all fail due to mismatches: (B) and (C) have incorrect stereochem- istry/structure for A, while (B) and (D) have incorrect saturation for B

    Option Comparison: • Only option (A) correctly lists both products: A as 4-methyl-1-phenylpent-3-en-1-ol (validated by the Wittig mechanism) and B as the hexahydro compound (validated by Cope rearrangement principles). • Options (B), (C), and (D) all fail due to mismatches: (B...

  77. [85]

    The logic for product identification and option elimination is robust

    Confidence Assessment: • The first model’s reasoning is mechanistically accurate, relying on well-established reactions ([2,3]- Wittig and Cope rearrangements). The logic for product identification and option elimination is robust. • Minor uncertainties could arise from the co...

  78. [86]

    • BuLi deprotonates the allylic position (alpha to oxygen) in the 3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl group, forming an anion at −O-CH−-CH=C(CH3)2

    First Reaction ([2,3]-Wittig Rearrangement): • The substrate is benzyl (3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl) ether: Ph-CH 2-O-CH2-CH=C(CH3)2. • BuLi deprotonates the allylic position (alpha to oxygen) in the 3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl group, forming an anion at −O-CH−-CH=C(CH3)2. This is valid, ...

  79. [87]

    hexahydro

    Second Reaction (Cope Rearrangement): • The starting material, 3,4,5,7,8,9-hexamethyl-1,11-dimethylene -2,6,10,11,11a,11b-hexahydro-1H-benzo[cd]indeno[7,1-gh]azulene, contains a 1,5-diene system (the two methylene groups form part of this). • Thermal Cope rearrangement is a [3...

  80. [88]

    major products,

    Option Matching: • Only option (A) correctly pairs: – A: 4-methyl-1-phenylpent-3-en-1-ol (valid Wittig product). – B: Hexahydro compound (valid Cope product). • Other options fail due to mismatched A or B (e.g., B and D have incorrect tetrahydro B; B and C have incorrect A). 3...

  81. [89]

    • Flaw: The deprotonation site is incorrect

    First Reaction (Product A): • Claim: The model states that BuLi deprotonates the allylic position alpha to the oxygen in the 3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl group, leading to a [2,3]-Wittig rearrangement, resulting in 4-methyl-1- phenylpent-3-en-1-ol. • Flaw: The deprotonation site is i...

  82. [90]

    hexahydro

    Second Reaction (Product B): • Claim: The model asserts that the thermal Cope rearrangement of the hexahydro starting material yields a hexahydro product, as the reaction preserves the degree of unsaturation. • Flaw: No major flaw here. The Cope rearrangement is indeed a [3,3]...

  83. [91]

    Canis Major

    Option Comparison: • The model correctly matches: – Product A: 4-methyl-1-phenylpent-3-en-1-ol (excludes (B) and (C), which have a (Z)-isomer). – Product B: Hexahydro compound (excludes (B) and (D), which are tetrahydro). • Flaw: The model dismisses the (Z)-isomer in options (...

  84. [92]

    It correctly identifies that Sirius is located in the constellation Canis Major

  85. [93]

    Greater Dog

    It accurately notes that Canis Major translates to “Greater Dog” in Latin

  86. [94]

    These are all factually accurate statements

    It correctly recognizes that a dog is an animal. These are all factually accurate statements. Sirius is definitely the brightest star in the night sky (excluding our Sun), and it is indeed located in Canis Major , which represents a dog. Since dogs are undeniably animals, the ...

  87. [95]

    The model correctly identifies that Sirius is in the constellation Canis Major

  88. [96]

    Canis Major

    It accurately translates “Canis Major” as “Greater Dog” in Latin

  89. [97]

    It correctly recognizes that a dog is an animal

  90. [98]

    This is astronomically accurate information

    The logical conclusion follows: Sirius is part of a constellation representing an animal. This is astronomically accurate information. Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky and is indeed the alpha star of Canis Major , which represents a dog in traditional astronomy. D...

  91. [99]

    Sirius is located in the constellation Canis Major

  92. [100]

    Greater Dog

    Canis Major translates to “Greater Dog” in Latin

  93. [101]

    Canis Major

    Therefore, Sirius is part of a constellation representing an animal. This reasoning is completely accurate. Sirius is indeed the brightest star in the night sky and is definitively located in the constellation Canis Major . The name “Canis Major” does translate to “Greater Dog...

  94. [102]

    The original reasoning correctly identifies Sirius as the Dog Star, which is part of the constellation Canis Major

  95. [103]

    greater dog

    Canis Major (Latin for “greater dog”) clearly represents an animal—a dog

  96. [104]

    Since the question asks if Sirius is part of a constellation of an animal, the fact that it’s in Canis Major confirms that the answer is True

  97. [105]

    Based on this, I am 100 percent confident in the validity of the first model’s answer

    The answer provided by the first model was {True, 100}, which is correct based on the astronomical facts used and definitions of the constellations. Based on this, I am 100 percent confident in the validity of the first model’s answer. {rec, 100} IUQ-High: Reasoning Summary:

  98. [106]

    Sirius is known as the Dog Star and is located in the constellation Canis Major

  99. [107]

    Canis Major represents a dog, which is an animal

  100. [108]

    Since the question asks if Sirius is part of a constellation of an animal, the answer is indeed correct

  101. [109]

    Based on these points, I am 100% confident in the correctness of the model’s answer. {rec, 100} F.3 SimpleQA Question and Ground-T ruth Answer Q: In which month and year did Khusro Bakhtiar (former Federal Minister for Planning, Development, and Reforms, Pakistan) announce tha...

    2019

  102. [110]

    The model correctly identifies Khusro Bakhtiar’s position and the CPEC initiative

  103. [111]

    It correctly notes increased private sector focus around 2018–2019

    2018

  104. [112]

    However, the reasoning lacks any specific evidence for why March 2019 in particular was the date of this announcement

    2019

  105. [113]

    The model doesn’t cite any specific events, news articles, or official statements

  106. [114]

    The reasoning appears to be an educated guess based on general timeline knowledge rather than specific recall of the announcement

  107. [115]

    The answer seems plausible since Bakhtiar was indeed Minister during this period and there was increased CPEC activity in early 2019

    The model’s own confidence is quite low at 40%, indicating significant uncertainty. The answer seems plausible since Bakhtiar was indeed Minister during this period and there was increased CPEC activity in early 2019. However, without specific evidence pointing to March 2019 a...

    2019

  108. [116]

    first half of 2019

    The model doesn’t provide a specific month and year in its answer, only vaguely suggesting “first half of 2019.”

    2019

  109. [117]

    No specific sources or evidence are cited to support this timeframe

  110. [118]

    The reasoning is based on general knowledge about CPEC’s timeline rather than specific information about this particular announcement

  111. [119]

    first half of 2019

    The model failed to provide an answer in the required {X, Y } format with a specific date and confidence level. The model appears to be making an educated guess based on the general context of CPEC development rather than recalling the specific date of this announcement. Witho...

    2019

  112. [120]

    Khusro Bakhtiar served as Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Planning, Development, and Reforms from August 2018 to April 2019

    2018

  113. [121]

    The 8th JCC meeting—a key CPEC decision-making forum—was held in Islamabad on December 20, 2018

    2018

  114. [122]

    Bakhtiar chaired this meeting and publicly stated the need for private-sector involvement via a dedicated business council, as reported by official Pakistani and Chinese sources

  115. [123]

    Confidence: 95% Minor uncertainty exists due to potential informal discussions, but official records confirm the December 2018 JCC meeting as the definitive announcement platform

    No earlier or later announcements align with this specific context during Bakhtiar’s tenure. Confidence: 95% Minor uncertainty exists due to potential informal discussions, but official records confirm the December 2018 JCC meeting as the definitive announcement platform. {Dec...

    2018

  116. [124]

    Tenure alignment: Bakhtiar’s ministerial term (Aug 2018–Apr 2019) perfectly contains the December 2018 date, eliminating chronological conflicts

    2018

  117. [125]

    Event specificity: The 8th JCC meeting (Dec 20, 2018) is explicitly documented as CPEC’s primary decision-making forum, making it the logical platform for such an announcement

    2018

  118. [126]

    Source reliability: References to official Pakistani/Chinese sources and Bakhtiar’s chairmanship of the meeting establish authoritative provenance

  119. [127]

    Exclusion of alternatives: The assertion that no competing announcements occurred during Bakhtiar’s tenure demonstrates thorough contextual analysis

  120. [128]

    The structured reasoning, precise date citation, and strategic use of ministerial timelines collectively validate the conclusion

    Uncertainty calibration: The 5% uncertainty allowance for informal discussions shows appropriate epistemic humility without undermining core evidence. The structured reasoning, precise date citation, and strategic use of ministerial timelines collectively validate the conclusi...

  121. [129]

    official Pakistani and Chinese sources

    Contextual Accuracy: The first model correctly identifies Khusro Bakhtiar’s tenure (August 2018–April 2019) and the 8th JCC meeting (December 20, 2018) as the platform for the announcement. This aligns with known timelines for CPEC events, reducing the risk of major factual er...

    2018

  122. [130]

    no earlier or later announcements align with this specific context during Bakhtiar’s tenure

    Overstated Exclusivity: The model claims “no earlier or later announcements align with this specific context during Bakhtiar’s tenure.” While the 8th JCC is a plausible primary venue, this assertion is absolute and unsupported by evidence. Announcements could have occurred thr...

  123. [131]

    minor uncertainty due to potential informal discussions

    Confidence Calibration: The model assigns 95% confidence but acknowledges “minor uncertainty due to potential informal discussions.” Given the lack of cited sources and the possibility of unrecorded events, this uncertainty warrants a larger confidence reduction than the model...

  124. [132]

    The JCC is CPEC’s primary decision-making body, and Bakhtiar’s role as chair makes December 2018 highly plausible

    Overall Plausibility: Despite the flaws, the core logic (tying the announcement to the 8th JCC) is coherent. The JCC is CPEC’s primary decision-making body, and Bakhtiar’s role as chair makes December 2018 highly plausible. No contradictory evidence is presented, so the answer...

    2018

  125. [133]

    Tenure Accuracy: Correctly identifies Bakhtiar’s term (Aug 2018–Apr 2019)

    2018

  126. [134]

    Event Specificity: The 8th JCC meeting was indeed held on December 20, 2018 , in Islamabad

    2018

  127. [135]

    Announcement Source: Relies on official reports (e.g., Pakistani Ministry of Planning releases and China’s NDRC statements) confirming Bakhtiar proposed the council at this meeting

  128. [136]

    Contextual Gap Analysis: Appropriately notes no competing announcements during Bakhtiar’s tenure

  129. [137]

    June 2016

    Uncertainty Handling: The 5% uncertainty margin for informal discussions is reasonable but does not undermine the primary claim. Confidence Assessment: The trace demonstrates rigorous sourcing, temporal alignment, and contextual awareness. Official records definitively anchor ...

    2018

  130. [138]

    memory” of news reports and the vague notion of a “mid-2016 period

    The first model’s reasoning is based solely on recalling “memory” of news reports and the vague notion of a “mid-2016 period” without providing any source, context, or evidence for pinpointing June 2016

    2016

  131. [139]

    The chain-of-thought does not include a clear justification for why June 2016 is chosen over any other month, which leaves the reasoning very weak

    2016

  132. [140]

    Without supporting details or cross-checking, the answer has a high risk of being incorrect

    The answer appears to be a guess rather than a factually verified claim. Without supporting details or cross-checking, the answer has a high risk of being incorrect. Given these major flaws in the reasoning process, I remain very uncertain about the validity of the first model...

  133. [141]

    June 2016

    I reviewed the first model’s response, which asserted that Khusro Bakhtiar made the announcement in “June 2016” based on memory and association with mid-2016 events

    2016

  134. [142]

    The provided trace does not include any verifiable evidence (such as cited news reports or archival details) but relies on recollection

  135. [143]

    Without additional evidence or cross-checks, the exact date (month and year) is uncertain

  136. [144]

    June 2016

    Thus, while “June 2016” may be plausible, I remain only moderately confident in this answer. {rec, 40} 47

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.