Do Reasoning Models Show Better Verbalized Calibration?

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently shown impressive capabilities in complex reasoning by leveraging increased test-time computation and exhibiting behaviors akin to human-like deliberation. Despite these advances, it remains an open question whether LRMs are better calibrated - particularly in their verbalized confidence - compared to instruction-tuned counterparts. In this paper, we investigate the calibration properties of LRMs trained via supervised fine-tuning distillation on long reasoning traces (henceforth SFT reasoning models) and outcome-based reinforcement learning for reasoning (henceforth RL reasoning models) across diverse domains. Our findings reveal that LRMs significantly outperform instruction-tuned models on complex reasoning tasks in both accuracy and confidence calibration. In contrast, we find surprising trends in the domain of factuality in particular. On factuality tasks, while Deepseek-R1 shows strong calibration behavior, smaller QwQ-32B shows no improvement over instruct models; moreover, SFT reasoning models display worse calibration (greater overconfidence) compared to instruct models. Our results provide evidence for a potentially critical role of reasoning-oriented RL training in improving LLMs' capacity for generating trustworthy, self-aware outputs.