From Correctness to Utility: Gain-Based Prefix Evaluation for LLM Reasoning

Large Language Models often improve accuracy on reasoning tasks by sampling multiple Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces and aggregating them with majority voting (MV), a test-time technique called self-consistency. When we truncate a CoT partway through and regenerate the remainder, we observe that traces with correct answers reproduce their original answer more often than traces with wrong answers. We use this difference as a reliability signal, prefix consistency, that weights each candidate answer by how often it reappears under regeneration. It requires no access to token log-probabilities or self-rating prompts. Across five reasoning models and four math and science benchmarks, prefix consistency is the best correctness predictor in most settings, and reweighting votes by it reaches Standard MV plateau accuracy at up to 21x fewer tokens (median 4.6x). Our code is available at https://github.com/naoto-iwase/prefix-consistency.

Long reasoning traces need reliability estimates before final answers are known. We study prefix-conditioned eventual-success estimation, $P(y=1 \mid o_{1:t})$, using prefix-safe observations. Sequential Bayesian Belief Tracking (SBBT) calibrates observation likelihoods and recursively updates a two-state belief, providing a common tracker for scalar scores, text and self-verification markers, hidden clusters, token-pooling probes, and latent-trajectory features. Across generated open-weight traces on MATH-500, GSM8K, AIME 2025, and RIMO-N, probability quality and ranking separate: score-only SBBT often improves Brier, while AUROC gains require structure-aware evidence beyond strong prefix-safe baselines. In the strongest hard math setting, structure-aware observations reach +0.110 AUROC against standard prefix-safe baselines. Under a same-prefix classifier audit, MATH-500 text markers and RIMO-N self-verification signals remain positive. Together, these findings support SBBT as a calibration-aware online inference framework and expose an evidence regime: scalar scores mainly support probability quality, while structure-aware prefix signals support ranking only when strong prefix-safe baselines have not already absorbed the rank evidence.

Mathematical reasoning is a key benchmark for large language models. Reinforcement learning is a standard post-training mechanism for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models, yet performance remains sensitive to the design of the reward function that drives policy optimization. This paper introduces a search-driven framework that treats the reward specification itself as an object of optimization. The setting of interest is one in which the base model is held fixed and the reward specification is the primary remaining design lever. Candidate reward functions are generated by a frontier language model, validated automatically, screened through 500-step Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) training runs on a Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct base model with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), and ranked by F1 on the GSM8K test set. Ranked summaries from prior rounds are then fed back into the next round of generation. Over five rounds, the search produces 50 candidate rewards. The mean F1 rises from 0.596 in Round 1 to 0.632 in Round 5, and the top individual reward reaches F1 = 0.787. Seven ensemble configurations of top-ranked rewards are evaluated. The best ensemble achieves F1 = 0.795 (95% bootstrap CI [0.756, 0.832]) and accuracy 0.660 [0.635, 0.686], a 0.19 absolute F1 gain over a base-rewards-only GRPO baseline (F1 = 0.609). Pairwise McNemar tests with Bonferroni correction show all five-or-more-reward configurations are statistically indistinguishable at α = 0.05/21. A three-seed re-training of the best ensemble yields F1 of 0.785. A randomly drawn 5-reward control collapses to F1 = 0.047, which shows that the ranked-feedback loop, not the additive signal of having more rewards, drives the gain.