arXiv Machine Learning

Verification Pulses and the Cost of Escaping Wrong Consensus

arXiv:2610. 00256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: External verification can correct individual outputs while leaving a self-reinforcing population in the basin of a wrong consensus.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 10

Stable Answers, Unfinished Reasoning: Why Self-Consensus Is Not a Safe Early-Exit Signal

The paper investigates whether self-consensus—stopping a reasoning model when its partial trajectory’s answers agree—can safely reduce inference cost. A large sweep of 3,520 consensus rules on two models and three benchmarks failed to meet predefined safety criteria, while a boundary‑confidence control (DEER) succeeded. The study shows that agreement signals that an answer persists under a fixed probing procedure, not that reasoning has finished, leading to premature stops and missed corrections even when token savings are significant.

By Yunxiang Mo, Donghao Zhao, Hejia Geng
arXiv AI
Sep 4

It's the Problem, Not the Path: Budget and Difficulty Confounds in LLM Reasoning Trajectories

The paper investigates whether large language models’ reasoning traces truly contain early, informative signals or merely reflect budget and difficulty confounds. Using a restart‑controlled truncation probe, the authors compare continuation success rates against from‑scratch restart curves across 178 problem‑model pairs, finding that only one case shows prefix‑limited success and that continuing a model’s own prefix generally outperforms restarting. A difficulty‑controlled test and two generation‑free analyses reveal that early internal signals do not carry outcome information beyond a problem‑difficulty baseline, underscoring the need for proper counterfactual controls.

By Yigit Utku Bulut
arXiv AI
Aug 19

An Omitted Mode Is a Rare Rule: The Sampling-Verification Danger Law in Continuous Code World Models

The paper investigates the safety of Code World Models, where a language model generates executable world models that a planner uses. It shows that accepting a model based on sampled transitions only guarantees sample consistency, not full safety, because the probability of missing critical events decays as (1‑r)^N. Experiments on hybrid instruments reveal that omitted mode‑boundaries can severely limit planner performance, and that even sophisticated LLMs (GPT‑5.x) struggle to repair such omissions in higher‑dimensional settings.

By Javier Aguilar Mart\'in
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18

An Omitted Mode Is a Rare Rule: The Sampling-Verification Danger Law in Continuous Code World Models

The paper investigates the safety of Code World Models, where a language model generates an executable world model that a planner uses, and the model is accepted if it reproduces sampled transitions. It defines the pipeline’s danger as the expected risk, showing that the probability of missing a critical event across N independent rollouts is (1‑r)^N, and that an additional acceptance sample adds to the exponent. Experiments on hybrid instruments reveal that mode‑blind models can be exploited, and the authors provide theoretical bounds on localization budgets and demonstrate that acceptance only guarantees sample consistency, covering about two percent of the planner’s queries.