Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Robots interacting with humans must not only generate learned movements in real-time, but also infer the intent behind observed behaviors and estimate the confidence of their own inferences. This paper proposes a unified model that achieves all three capabilities within a single hierarchical predictive-coding recurrent neural network (PC-RNN) equipped with a class embedding vector, CERNet, which leverages a dynamically updated class embedding vector to unify motor generation and recognition. The model operates in two modes: generation and inference. In the generation mode, the class embedding constrains the hidden state dynamics to a class-specific subspace; in the inference mode, it is optimized online to minimize prediction error, enabling real-time recognition. Validated on a humanoid robot across 26 kinesthetically taught alphabets, our hierarchical model achieves 76% lower trajectory reproduction error than a parameter-matched single-layer baseline, maintains motion fidelity under external perturbations, and infers the demonstrated trajectory class online with 68% Top-1 and 81% Top-2 accuracy. Furthermore, internal prediction errors naturally reflect the model's confidence in its recognition. This integration of robust generation, real-time recognition, and intrinsic uncertainty estimation within a compact PC-RNN framework offers a compact and extensible approach to motor memory in physical robots, with potential applications in intent-sensitive human-robot collaboration.

Autonomous driving planning systems perform nearly perfectly in routine scenarios using lightweight, rule-based methods but still struggle in dense urban traffic, where lane changes and merges require anticipating and influencing other agents. Modern motion predictors offer highly accurate forecasts, yet their integration into planning is mostly rudimental: discarding unsafe plans. Similarly, end-to-end models offer a one-way integration that avoids the challenges of joint prediction and planning modeling under uncertainty. In contrast, game-theoretic formulations offer a principled alternative but have seen limited adoption in autonomous driving. We present Bayesian Iterative Best Response (BIBeR), a framework that unifies motion prediction and game-theoretic planning into a single interaction-aware process. BIBeR is the first to integrate a state-of-the-art predictor into an Iterative Best Response (IBR) loop, repeatedly refining the strategies of the ego vehicle and surrounding agents. This repeated best-response process approximates a Nash equilibrium, enabling bidirectional adaptation where the ego both reacts to and shapes the behavior of others. In addition, our proposed Bayesian confidence estimation quantifies prediction reliability and modulates update strength, more conservative under low confidence and more decisive under high confidence. BIBeR is compatible with modern predictors and planners, combining the transparency of structured planning with the flexibility of learned models. Experiments show that BIBeR achieves an 11% improvement over state-of-the-art planners on highly interactive interPlan lane-change scenarios, while also outperforming existing approaches on standard nuPlan benchmarks.

Knowing the reliability of a model's response is essential in application. With the strong generation capabilities of LLMs, research has focused on generating verbalized confidence. This is further enhanced by combining chain-of-thought reasoning, which provides logical and transparent estimation. However, how reasoning strategies affect the estimated confidence is still under-explored. In this work, we demonstrate that predicting a verbalized probability distribution can effectively encourage in-depth reasoning for confidence estimation. Intuitively, it requires an LLM to consider all candidates within the answer space instead of basing on a single guess, and to carefully assign confidence scores to meet the requirements of a distribution. This method shows an advantage across different models and various tasks, regardless of whether the answer space is known. Its advantage is maintained even after reinforcement learning, and further analysis shows its reasoning patterns are aligned with human expectations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning abilities, yet existing test-time frameworks often rely on coarse self-verification and self-correction, limiting their effectiveness on complex tasks. In this paper, we propose Socratic Self-Refine (SSR), a novel framework for fine-grained evaluation and precise refinement of LLM reasoning. Our proposed SSR decomposes model responses into verifiable (sub-question, sub-answer) pairs, enabling step-level confidence estimation through controlled re-solving and self-consistency checks. By pinpointing unreliable steps and iteratively refining them, SSR produces more accurate and interpretable reasoning chains. Empirical results across five reasoning benchmarks and three LLMs show that SSR consistently outperforms state-of-the-art iterative self-refinement baselines. Beyond performance gains, SSR provides a principled black-box approach for evaluating and understanding the internal reasoning processes of LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/socratic-self-refine-reasoning.

Reliability and failure detection of large language models (LLMs) is critical for their deployment in high-stakes, multi-step reasoning tasks. Prior work explores confidence estimation for self-evaluating LLM-scorer systems, with confidence scorers estimating the likelihood of errors in LLM responses. However, most methods focus on single-step outputs and overlook the challenges of multi-step reasoning. In this work, we extend self-evaluation techniques to multi-step tasks, testing two intuitive approaches: holistic scoring and step-by-step scoring. Using two multi-step benchmark datasets, we show that stepwise evaluation generally outperforms holistic scoring in detecting potential errors, with up to 15% relative increase in AUC-ROC. Our findings demonstrate that self-evaluating LLM systems provide meaningful confidence estimates in complex reasoning, improving their trustworthiness and providing a practical framework for failure detection.

Despite their strengths, large language models (LLMs) often fail to communicate their confidence accurately, making it difficult to assess when they might be wrong and limiting their reliability. In this work, we demonstrate that reasoning models that engage in extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit superior performance not only in problem-solving but also in accurately expressing their confidence. Specifically, we benchmark six reasoning models across six datasets and find that they achieve strictly better confidence calibration than their non-reasoning counterparts in 33 out of the 36 settings. Our detailed analysis reveals that these gains in calibration stem from the slow thinking behaviors of reasoning models (e.g., exploring alternative approaches and backtracking) which enable them to adjust their confidence dynamically throughout their CoT, making it progressively more accurate. In particular, we find that reasoning models become increasingly better calibrated as their CoT unfolds, a trend not observed in non-reasoning models. Moreover, removing slow thinking behaviors from the CoT leads to a significant drop in calibration. Lastly, we show that non-reasoning models also demonstrate enhanced calibration when simply guided to slow think via in-context learning, fully isolating slow thinking as the source of the calibration gains.

As artificial intelligence systems increasingly collaborate with humans in creative and technical domains, questions arise about the cognitive boundaries and biases that shape our shared agency. This paper investigates the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE), the tendency for those with limited competence to overestimate their abilities in state-of-the-art LLMs in coding tasks. By analyzing model confidence and performance across a diverse set of programming languages, we reveal that AI models mirror human patterns of overconfidence, especially in unfamiliar or low-resource domains. Our experiments demonstrate that less competent models and those operating in rare programming languages exhibit stronger DKE-like bias, suggesting that the strength of the bias is proportionate to the competence of the models.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/