cs.CLJul 2, 2026

Improving LLMs via Validator-to-Generator Alignment

Authors: Juan Diego Rodriguez, Jocelyn Zhang, Katrin Erk, Greg Durrett

Organizations: Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin · Departments of Linguistics and Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst · Department of Computer Science & Center for Data Science, New York University

Abstract

Large language models are inconsistent: varying prompts or including unrelated information can lead to unexpected changes in model outputs. The generator-validator (G-V) gap is one manifestation of this phenomenon, where LLMs generate responses that they then deem as invalid if re-queried to validate them. In this work, we introduce a new formulation of G-V consistency that involves a principled correction for utterance frequency. Specifically, generators often assign low likelihood to valid strings simply because those strings are a priori unlikely, which makes naive notions of G-V consistency unworkable. We show that under a natural model of rational agents answering questions with multiple answers, consistency of the validator with a frequency-corrected generator score emerges naturally. Our method, \emph{\FCPAname} (\FCPA), is a training objective implementing frequency-corrected G-V consistency for real-world LLMs. Our experimental results show that training with \FCPA{} substantially improves both G-V consistency and generator performance over prior methods, with gains of up to +27+27pp in Pearson correlation on IFEval and HumanEval, while preserving validator quality across all evaluated tasks.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 16, 2026cs.CY

The Consistency Dilemma in LLMs: Generator-Evaluator Agreement and Vulnerability to Mistakes

Large language models are increasingly deployed in agentic pipelines that depend on the model evaluating its own outputs without external verification. The reliability of these pipelines depends on an implicit assumption: that the model applies relevant concepts the same way when it generates an output and later evaluates that output. We propose a new measure, generator-evaluator self-consistency, to test this assumption directly and apply it to 10 frontier models across 491 concepts. We find, first, that there is substantial variation in self-consistency. Second, we find that in a clinical setting with physician-validated mistakes (Proniakin et al., 2025), across models, those with higher self-consistency are linked to greater vulnerability to mistakes. Thus, even when models consistently apply concepts they may not be safe to deploy. This is evidence of a consistency dilemma in LLMs: self-consistency is operationally useful, but models that are more consistent are also more prone to mistakes.
Marina Mancoridis, Zoë Hitzig
Self-ConsistencyVulnerability Detection & Repair
AskPDF
Jul 16, 2026cs.CL

Controlled Reformulation Testing for Logical Consistency in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) frequently contradict themselves when the surface form of a logically equivalent question changes. We present a benchmark of 350 question families (1,750 total questions) for Controlled Reformulation Testing (CRTBench) to evaluate logical invariance. In this benchmark, we investigate LLMs' ability to maintain consistent answers across controlled reformulations, which include contrapositive rewriting, double negation, negation flipping, and passive voice. We evaluate several frontier LLMs and observe an accuracy-consistency gap where GPT-5.4-mini achieves 98.9%98.9\% base accuracy but only 60.3%60.3\% family-level consistency, while reasoning-optimized o4-mini achieves 96.9%96.9\% consistency. From our experiments, we observe that failures cluster around logically nontrivial transformations such as contrapositive rewriting (72.4%72.4\% for GPT-5.4-mini) and double negation (84.6%84.6\%), while surface-level rephrasing remains robust (94−100%94-100\%). Increasing reasoning effort improves GPT-5.4-mini to 85.4%85.4\% consistency, but leaves GPT-5.4 unchanged overall because gains on nested negation are offset by failures on quantifier families. These results show that accuracy alone is not enough for evaluating logical reasoning in LLMs.
Alexander Gu, Alan Chen
RewriteEquivalence
AskPDF
Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

Is This Your Final Answer? Cross-Contextual Consistency as a Measure of LLM Credibility

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful black-box systems, making it difficult to discern whether their answers reflect stable internal beliefs or superficial pattern matching. We identify cross-contextual consistency as an underutilized behavioral property of LLMs: a credible answer should remain stable when the same task is placed under topic-aligned, content-neutral contextual variation. Building on this intuition, we operationalize Cross-Contextual Consistency (C3) by comparing model generations under original and perturbed prompts. Across 26 models and six benchmarks spanning reasoning, factuality, and code generation, we find that answers with smaller cross-contextual shifts are more likely to be correct or factual. We demonstrate that C3 provides a complementary axis of evaluation and can serve as a benchmark usefulness diagnostic, identifying which portions of a benchmark remain informative even when aggregated scores are widely considered "saturate".
Siyang Wu, Yibo Jiang, Bryon Aragam
Large Language Model Reliability
AskPDF