Quantifying Cross-Query Contradictions in Multi-Query LLM Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score $c(\varphi) = p(\varphi) + p(\lnot\varphi)$ quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a \textbf{deterministic elicitation protocol} via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction ($\mathbb{E}[v_{\mathrm{neg}}]{=}0.025$) but only $7.4\%$ coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches $79.4\%$ coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 ($ρ{=}0.97$). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) explore problems through chain-of-thought, but this exploration is buried in unstructured prose. On high-stakes tasks, users cannot tell which steps are well-supported, which alternatives were seriously considered, or how the final conclusion compares to those the model discarded. We propose a framework that ensembles the reasoning structure, not just the answers, of multiple LLMs by weighted merging of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) extracted from reasoning chains. We weight each step by how many traces independently attest to it, to return "Consensus Reasoning". Across six benchmarks spanning statutory interpretation, graduate-level science, narrative multi-hop reasoning, and first-order logic, our ensemble outperforms a matched-budget majority-vote baseline, with a maximum accuracy gain of 3.1% on MuSR-MM (narrative multi-hop reasoning). On a single model, the framework matches or exceeds self-consistency at the same trace budget while additionally exposing an inspectable consensus reasoning graph. Ensemble weights correlate with LLM-judge rankings of reasoning quality at Spearman $ρ= 0.30$-$0.51$, and consensus subgraphs are preferred over alternatives leading to the majority-vote answer in 54.4-65.4% of head-to-head comparisons across five of six datasets. We observe that our framework can also be used to analyze diverse reasoning perspectives for a problem.

How do multi-turn reasoning systems fail? The expected answer is logical contradiction, in which the system's maintained state becomes unsatisfiable. We show that the dominant mode is instead satisfiable drift, where the internal state stays consistent while the returned answer silently violates prior commitments. We build DRIFT-Bench (Decomposing Reasoning Into Failure Types), a solver-instrumented benchmark of 816 test problems across three constraint domains, and evaluate four methods on it across four open-weight models (8B-120B parameters). MUS-Repair, which feeds minimal unsatisfiable subsets back to the generator, is strongest in every setting (+1.8 to +15.0 pp over the best non-MUS baseline). But the central finding is what repair leaves behind. After structured feedback, models rarely contradict themselves. They forget. Residual errors are 98-100% satisfiable drift across all settings, while contradiction drops to near zero. Reliable multi-turn systems must separately validate that the returned answer respects the maintained state. Code is available at https://github.com/kaons-research/drift-bench.