aiqbench analysis
This research demonstrates a significant coupling between the internal sampling distributions of large language models and their verbalized confidence statements, revealing that text-based uncertainty can reliably probe a model's hidden probability landscape. By showing alignment beyond simple data frequency tracking, the study provides a new method for diagnosing model uncertainty without direct access to logits or internal states. This finding advances our understanding of how LLMs represent and communicate knowledge reliability, which is critical for building safer and more interpretable AI systems.
Verbalized and Internal Probabilities Are Coupled in Large Language Models
arXiv:2610.00827v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models carry an internal notion of uncertainty in their sampling distribution, i.e., the probabilities they place on generating one answer rather than another. They can also be asked to state a confidence, in words or as a number: a verbalized uncertainty. Prior work suggests that internal probabilities track relative frequencies in the training data, and that verbalized probabilities track explicit probabilistic assertions in the training data. However, we do not know whether these two readouts are aligned, except when frequencies and probabilistic assertions in the training data happen to align. This limits our understanding of when we can use verbalized uncertainties as a proxy for either training data frequencies, or a model's internal distribution. We resolve this gap by systematically exploring how LLMs probability readouts are impacted by training and in-context data, via intervening on the underlying uncertainty sources in the data. We find that both internal and verbalized probability readouts are impacted by both distributional and asserted uncertainty in the training data. Further, we find that verbalized and internal probabilities are aligned beyond what would be expected by independently tracking the same uncertainty sources, suggesting that verbalized probabilities can be used to probe a model's internal distribution.
Abstract:Large language models carry an internal notion of uncertainty in their sampling distribution, i.e., the probabilities they place on generating one answer rather than another. They can also be asked to state a confidence, in words or as a number: a verbalized uncertainty. Prior work suggests that internal probabilities track relative frequencies in the training data, and that verbalized probabilities track explicit probabilistic assertions in the training data. However, we do not know whether these two readouts are aligned, except when frequencies and probabilistic assertions in the training data happen to align. This limits our understanding of when we can use verbalized uncertainties as a proxy for either training data frequencies, or a model's internal distribution. We resolve this gap by systematically exploring how LLMs probability readouts are impacted by training and in-context data, via intervening on the underlying uncertainty sources in the data. We find that both internal and verbalized probability readouts are impacted by both distributional and asserted uncertainty in the training data. Further, we find that verbalized and internal probabilities are aligned beyond what would be expected by independently tracking the same uncertainty sources, suggesting that verbalized probabilities can be used to probe a model's internal distribution.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.00827 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.00827v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00827 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 298 words
Related coverage
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026

Presentation: Exploding GPUs
InfoQ · Oct 16, 2026
Small Vision-Language Models Know When They Are Wrong But Cannot Say So: A Two-Model Study of Stated versus Internal Confidence Under Realistic Image Degradation
arXiv · Jul 27, 2026