Many decoding methods for large language models can be understood as shifting probability mass toward outputs that are more likely under the model, either locally at the token level or globally at the sequence level. Therefore, their success depends on a fundamental question: when does sequence probability, that is, the conditional probability of a continuation given a prompt, actually align with correctness? In this paper, we set out to quantify this relationship across decoding methods, models, and benchmarks at four levels: across decoding methods, across hyperparameters within a method, across prompt-answer pairs within a dataset, and across repeated responses to the same prompt. We find that higher sequence probability is often predictive of correctness across prompt-answer pairs within a fixed dataset. However, this relationship does not generally transfer to decoding decisions: increasing sequence probability by changing hyperparameters or methods does not reliably improve accuracy. Further, sequence probability is not a good indicator of correctness for responses to the same prompt. These findings clarify when decoding can and cannot be expected to improve correctness, and provide practical guidance for decoding, self-consistency, and verifier-free self-improvement.
When a large language model fails a reasoning task, it is often assumed to lack the underlying capability. However, this conflates a genuine absence of reasoning with a late-stage output bottleneck. We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks: hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses due to structural biases. To test whether instance-specific logic survives this collapse, we introduce a diagnostic protocol using a minimal, target-label-free additive correction. Fitting just two parameters on as few as 25 unlabeled examples recovers 9--34 accuracy points for Qwen3.5 models, transferring successfully to OLMo-2-1B and Llama-3.1-8B. Crucially, these recovered decisions persist on hard instances unresolved by simple lexical overlap and significantly exceed count-preserving permutation baselines. Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic, urging a narrower interpretation of benchmark evaluations.
Test-time reasoning has become a significant field of study since the introduction of chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, the mechanisms of this reasoning process are still under-explored -- from the same input prompt, and even the same partial solution, LLMs can produce varied answers if sampled multiple times. We propose to leverage question-asking as an inference-time intervention that articulates information about the model's hidden state. To achieve that, we present a student-teacher setting where a student asks questions to a teacher. We train a probe on the student's hidden state before and after asking a question and find it is predictive of the trajectory's final correctness, even before generating the teacher's answer. This suggests there is a meaningful signal from the self-diagnosis that occurs during question generation rather than information transfer from the teacher. We then frame question-asking as a sequential decision problem, using this probe as a quality score, and define a gating policy to ask questions that maximize likelihood of correctness. We find that the success of question-asking as an intervention is largely dependent on the model's self-consistency. Our empirical results show a gap between detection and recovery; while our gating policy captures model correctness and uncertainty, interventions are equally likely to harm correct trajectories as they are to recover incorrect ones. This gap between diagnosis and correction has broader implications on language models' capacity for self-refinement under uncertainty.
Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers. We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted. Using these signals, DISC progressively reduces errors across multiple verify-judge-correct passes, analogous to traditional iterative denoising. A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors. We evaluate this trade-off using two paired diagnostics: an improvement-to-degradation ratio (precision) and a repair rate (recall). Across three benchmarks (BIG-Bench Mistake, HotpotQA, GPQA Diamond) and four models, DISC dominates Chain-of-Verification and Self-Refine on the precision-recall trade-off, reaching 81.6% accuracy with 13x more improvements per degradation than Chain-of-Verification and 5x more than Self-Refine on BIG-Bench Mistake (Sonnet~4.5). On GPQA Diamond, we identify a capability floor below which judges acknowledge contradictions in evidence but cannot translate that recognition into a correction. We further show that cross-model role allocation -- assigning verification and judgment to a model different from the generator -- mitigates self-confirmation bias.