Consensus is Not Verification: Why Crowd Wisdom Strategies Fail for LLM Truthfulness

Same-model self-verification, prompting a model to audit its own predicted answer, is a plausible confidence signal for selective prediction, but its practical value remains unclear once strong likelihood-based baselines are taken seriously. We evaluate self-verification against two such baselines, LL-AVG and LL-SUM, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA-MC across multiple model families, scales, and prompt variants. We measure not only correctness ranking, but also abstention quality through AURC and operating-point analyses. The results are sharply task- and model-dependent. On ARC-Challenge, self-verification substantially improves over LL-AVG for Phi-2 and the Qwen models, with the largest gains appearing in Qwen-7B. On TruthfulQA-MC, however, the signal is less reliable: smaller models can become prompt-sensitive, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-8B degrades relative to LL-AVG, and LL-SUM often remains the stronger practical baseline. We therefore do not treat self-verification as a general-purpose uncertainty estimator. In this setting, it is better understood as a conditional confidence signal whose value depends on task type, model family, prompt formulation, and, crucially, the baseline it must beat.

Reliably knowing when a language model is correct is almost as important as being correct. We introduce prover-verifier deliberation (PVD), an inference-time protocol grounded in interactive proof theory, as a mechanism for selective prediction: the protocol produces both an answer and a structured confidence verdict, allowing a system to report high-confidence answers while abstaining on uncertain cases. In each dialogue, a prover defends a candidate answer through checkable sub-claims while a verifier issues targeted challenges and returns Accept, Challenge, or Reject. Because frozen language models are imperfect provers and verifiers operating over a noisy channel, formal soundness and completeness guarantees do not transfer; instead, we characterize the protocol empirically through its coverage-precision behavior. Our main experiment uses Claude Sonnet 4.6 as prover and Claude Haiku 4.5 as verifier on GPQA Diamond. Questions accepted with no answer revision, which we call Accept + No Change (ANC), are reported as the high-confidence subset; we evaluate this subset by its precision and coverage. ANC separates reliable from unreliable answers, yielding a $\sim$30pp HC-Prec gap over the non-ANC complement. Robustness experiments with GPT and Gemini pairings show that high HC-Prec can transfer across model families, while verifier strictness and domain competence largely determine the size of the selection gap. On Humanity's Last Exam, weaker prover-verifier pairings can collapse or invert the ANC signal, illustrating a practical failure mode when the verifier operates outside its effective region. Comparisons with self-consistency, universal self-consistency, multi-agent debate, and Reflexion suggest that prover-verifier deliberation supplies a distinct argument-defensibility signal for selective prediction.

Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution. We study a third signal, free at inference time: cross-model consensus, the degree to which independently trained models, each solving the problem once, agree on a final answer. We treat the panel as an LLM-jury, in which the structure of agreement, not any model's score of another, is the verification signal. Across seven benchmarks it selects correct answers better than self-consistency and far better than a model scoring its own candidates: on competition math it closes the entire gap to an oracle selector, while self-scoring closes almost none. The mechanism is error decorrelation: independently trained models err differently, so their wrong answers scatter while the correct one accumulates agreement. We make this precise with a parameter-free law, derived in closed form, that predicts consensus accuracy from three measured panel statistics to a mean absolute error of $0.03$ and exposes the method's ceiling: a shared-error floor where models share a misconception, near zero on math but non-trivial on science. Against four trained verifiers spanning discriminative, outcome, and generative reward models, the free LLM-jury matches the strongest inside their math training domain and is the top selector outside it. Cross-model consensus is thus a verifier we can characterize in advance: a law that says when to trust it, and a floor that marks where it cannot.