When Does Consensus Mean Correctness? Measuring the Agreement-Accuracy Coupling with Semantics-Preserving Re-Rendering

Faithful text rendering remains a persistent weakness of large text-to-image generative models, as it requires both semantic instruction following and fine-grained glyph-level structure. Prior methods often improve this ability through architecture-specific modules or encoder modifications, which complicate deployment across foundation models. We study text rendering as a post-training preference-alignment problem and propose TextAlign, a non-invasive framework that keeps the generator architecture unchanged. The key component is a hierarchical vision-language model (VLM)-based reward that decomposes rendering errors into global, word, and glyph levels, then converts binary defect judgments into a scalar preference signal. The resulting signal supports both Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Experiments on FLUX.1-dev and Z-Image-Turbo show consistent gains in OCR-based text accuracy without degrading general generation quality. Compared with strong foundation and text-rendering baselines, including SD3.5, Qwen-Image, AnyText, and TextDiffuser, these results indicate that reward design offers a scalable alternative to model redesign for improving text rendering.

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.

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.