arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.32035

Reasoning Concentrates Errors, and Self-Consistency Never Notices

Asaad Althoubi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Self-consistency assumes that independent samples disagree when a model is unsure, so agreement is evidence of correctness. Holding weights fixed and toggling only a reasoning mode, over five benchmarks and 74,944 samples, we show that reasoning concentrates a model's errors: the probability that two independently drawn wrong answers coincide rises in all ten dataset-scale comparisons (p = 0.00098), and in nine of nine after restricting both arms to the problems each gets wrong. Where the answer space is unbounded, reasoning cuts the distinct answers produced to 0.43-0.65 of the non-reasoning count; where it is bounded, both arms hold an identical option set and reasoning concentrates mass on it instead, which no positional prior can explain at fixed weights. The aggregate cost is smaller than the mechanism predicts, because reasoning also shrinks the set of problems where answer diversity can decide anything, in ten of ten cells and by 2.7x; normalized for available headroom, both arms convert a quarter of it in domain. Confidence weighting does not recover what is left. Across 280 method-dataset-model combinations on eight models and five benchmarks, not one beats plain majority voting after correction; weighted voting agrees with it on 98.5% of problem-method pairs and is right 56.3% of the time on the rest; and a signal's direction can invert within fixed weights, with answer log-probability predicting correctness when reasoning is off and error when it is on. A learned six-signal combination gains nothing out of domain. Confidence signals should be evaluated on decisions, not on discrimination.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Asaad Althoubi. 2026-09-25. Reasoning Concentrates Errors, and Self-Consistency Never Notices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.32035

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

FlexQuant: Elastic Quantization Framework for Locally Hosted LLM on Edge Devices

Deploying LLMs on edge devices presents serious technical challenges. Memory elasticity is crucial for edge devices with unified memory, where memory is shared and fluctuates dynamically. Existing solutions suffer from either poor transition granularity or high storage costs. We propose FlexQuant, a novel elasticity framework that generates an ensemble of quantized models, providing an elastic hosting solution with 31x more deployment options, 15x granularity improvement, and 10x storage reduction compared to SoTA methods. FlexQuant works with most quantization methods and creates a family of trade-off options under various storage limits through our pruning method. It brings great performance and flexibility to the edge deployment of LLMs.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Rethinking Prospect Theory for LLMs: Revealing the Instability of Decision-Making under Epistemic Uncertainty

Real-world decision-making often involves uncertainty expressed in linguistic rather than numerical terms, and Prospect Theory (PT) provides a classic framework for modeling human behavior under such uncertainty. Although recent studies have developed frameworks to estimate PT parameters for Large Language Models (LLMs), few have examined whether PT itself adequately describes LLM decision-making behavior. To address these gaps, we develop a streamlined workflow grounded in a classic behavioral economics experimental paradigm. First, we estimate PT parameters and evaluate how well the resulting model captures LLM decision-making behavior. We then derive probability mappings for epistemic markers in the same context and inject them into prompts to examine the stability of PT parameters under linguistic uncertainty. Our findings suggest that PT does not consistently provide a reliable account of LLM decision-making across models, and that its application to LLMs is likely sensitive to epistemic uncertainty. The findings caution against the deployment of PT-based frameworks in real-world applications where epistemic ambiguity is prevalent, giving valuable insights in behaviour interpretation and future alignment direction for LLM decision-making.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Enabling Regulatory Multi-Agent Collaboration: Architecture, Challenges, and Solutions

Large language models (LLMs)-empowered autonomous agents are transforming both digital and physical environments by enabling adaptive, multi-agent collaboration. While these agents offer significant opportunities across domains such as finance, healthcare, and smart manufacturing, their unpredictable behaviors and heterogeneous capabilities pose substantial governance and accountability challenges. In this paper, we propose a blockchain-enabled layered architecture for regulatory agent collaboration, comprising an agent layer, an off-chain computation layer, and an on-chain anchoring layer. Within this framework, we design three key modules: (i) an agent behavior tracing and arbitration module for automated accountability, (ii) a dynamic reputation evaluation module for trust assessment in collaborative scenarios, and (iii) a malicious behavior forecasting module for early detection of adversarial activities. Our approach establishes a systematic foundation for trustworthy, resilient, and scalable regulatory mechanisms in large-scale agent ecosystems. Finally, we discuss the future research directions for blockchain-enabled regulatory frameworks in multi-agent systems.

cs.AI↗