How Reliable are Confidence Estimators for Large Reasoning Models? A Systematic Benchmark on High-Stakes Domains

Abstract

The miscalibration of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) undermines their reliability in high-stakes domains, necessitating methods to accurately estimate the confidence of their long-form, multi-step outputs. To address this gap, we introduce the Reasoning Model Confidence estimation Benchmark (RMCB), a public resource of 347,496 reasoning traces from six popular LRMs across different architectural families. The benchmark is constructed from a diverse suite of datasets spanning high-stakes domains, including clinical, financial, legal, and mathematical reasoning, alongside complex general reasoning benchmarks, with correctness annotations provided for all samples. Using RMCB, we conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation of over ten distinct representation-based methods, spanning sequential, graph-based, and text-based architectures. Our central finding is a persistent trade-off between discrimination (AUROC) and calibration (ECE): text-based encoders achieve the best AUROC (0.672), while structurally-aware models yield the best ECE (0.148), with no single method dominating both. Furthermore, we find that increased architectural complexity does not reliably outperform simpler sequential baselines, suggesting a performance ceiling for methods relying solely on chunk-level hidden states. This work provides the most comprehensive benchmark for this task to date, establishing rigorous baselines and demonstrating the limitations of current representation-based paradigms.

Ähnliche Arbeiten