Your model already knows it's wrong. Asking costs 0.06 seconds and zero tokens.
Read its internal state instead and you get 0.8801.
Same model. Same questions. The verdict was already there; nobody was reading it.
Zero-Token Confidence (ZTC) reads it. One forward pass, zero generated tokens, a calibrated probability out the other side. It ships today on Hugging Face.
#1 on the board — against verifiers that generate
A shared benchmark, 2,018 items, one harness, every verifier scored on the same rows.
| Verifier | AUC | Generated tokens |
|---|---|---|
| 🥇 ZTC · Darwin-397B | 0.7394 | 0 |
| JEV | 0.7335 | — |
| 🥉 ZTC-Judge-27B | 0.7255 | 0 |
| Surface baseline — answer length and formatting only | 0.7036 | 0 |
| open-jev 4B | 0.6844 | — |
| Lynx 8B | 0.5157 | — |
| The model's own self-reported confidence | 0.5000 | — |
| HHEM | 0.4852 | — |
Two numbers deserve a second look.
0.5000. That is the model answering "how sure are you?" It is exactly a coin. Every product that routes on self-reported confidence is routing on noise.
0.7036. That is a baseline that reads nothing but answer length and formatting. Two published verifiers score below it — they are not reading content at all.
ZTC tops the board while emitting not a single token.
The gap over asking the model: +0.22
On 539 held-out items, self-readout mode — the model judging its own answer:
| Model | Ask the model | Read the model | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Darwin-397B-ZTC | 0.7646 | 0.8801 | +0.116 |
| Qwen3.5-27B | 0.6141 | 0.8388 | +0.225 |
Every number clears a permutation null at z = 9 to 13 — the probe is refit on shuffled labels 200 times, and the real fit sits nine to thirteen standard deviations above that distribution.
And it holds when we make it hard: under leave-one-domain-out, where the probe never sees the domain it is tested on and every hyperparameter is chosen inside the training domains only, Darwin-397B still returns 0.7572.
0.0615 seconds
Measured on four B200s, 27B, 2,000 items:
Generate one candidate answer 1.631 s
ZTC gate 0.0615 s ← 26× cheaper than the work it guards
Darwin-397B scored 2,018 items in 270 seconds across eight B200s — 0.13 s each, forward pass included.
A verifier that generates tokens competes with your agent for the same budget. A verifier that reads costs about as much as a rounding error, which means you can gate every action instead of a sampled few.
Bigger is not better — and we have the receipt
Same 400 items, same harness, judge mode:
| Model behind the probe | AUC | z |
|---|---|---|
| Darwin-397B-ZTC | 0.8228 | 9.66 |
| Qwen3.5-27B | 0.8171 | 9.43 |
| Qwen3.8-Flash-Next — 180B class | 0.7146 | 5.83 |
A 180B-class model lands last, below a 27B, on identical rows.
Its hidden width is 2560 and 36 of its 48 layers use linear attention. The probe reads one vector: a narrow hidden state has less room to carry the verdict, and linear-attention layers compress away the global comparison the judgement needs.
What predicts ZTC quality is hidden width and full-attention share — not parameter count. Pick your gate model accordingly.
Ships today: 45 KB and four lines
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-397B-ZTC carries a deployable probe — a 45 KB .npz holding the weight vector, standardisation terms and calibration constants. No training data, no extra dependency, no service to call.
z = np.load("ztc/ztc_probe_darwin397b.npz")
h = model.model(**inputs).last_hidden_state[0, -1].float().cpu().numpy()
s = ((h - z["mu"]) / z["sd"]) @ z["w"]
p = 1 / (1 + np.exp(-(z["cal_A"] * (s - z["s_mean"]) / z["s_std"] + z["cal_B"])))
That is the whole integration. FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B does the same job over other models' answers, across five domains.
Watch it decide — in your browser
We wired these constants into a live arcade. Three lanes get the same stream of proposed actions — delete three rows, charge a payment, run the deploy script — and the same time budget. One has no gate and must execute everything. One uses a text-reading verifier. One uses ZTC.
Right action +1 · Wrong action −1 · Hold 0.
Over 400 matches:
No gate −3.9
Text verifier +13.0
ZTC +29.1 98% of matches won
Gating lifts executed accuracy from 49% → 65%. And in the same 300 seconds ZTC handles 2.2× more actions than the text verifier, because its gate is nearly free.
You can take the ungated lane yourself. The only cue on screen is the model's self-reported confidence — and you now know exactly what that number is worth.
👉 huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/gate-tetris
Korean · English · 中文. Running tally across all visitors.
Get it
| 🧠 Darwin-397B-ZTC | 397B MoE · GPQA Diamond 93.43 · self-readout probe included |
| ⚖️ ZTC-Judge-27B | judges other models' answers · 5 domains |
| 🎮 Gate Arcade | the comparison, live |
Zero-Token Confidence is developed by VIDRAFT. FINAL-Bench · vidraft.net

