What Iterated Self-Feeding Probes of Language Models Measure, and a test that separates the construction from the model

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.

Linear probes detect corrupted context in language models with near-perfect accuracy, yet this does not translate into reliable failure prediction. The result is a dissociation with direct implications for deployment monitoring. Across multi-hop arithmetic chains, probes that detect corruption turn out to be uninformative about final answer correctness; models forced into structured confidence formats collapse to two values with indistinguishable error rates; and probe persistence across hops fails to separate correct from incorrect outcomes, refuting our pre-registered "persistence beats peak" hypothesis. This pattern of knowing but not saying generalises across model families including reasoning models. As a real-time monitor, probe-based interventions are sharply model and error-type dependent: branch-and-pick is net-positive across models and uniquely non-breaking on Llama-3.1-8B (4 rescued, 0 broken), while reprompt and replace-prior break correct traces at roughly the rate they rescue wrong ones. Probe-based monitoring is a necessary complement to verbalised confidence, but no single intervention dominates, and the deployable answer is model-aware, error-type-aware routing.

Methods that make a language model plan, criticise and rewrite its own answer, reflect on mistakes, pick the best of several attempts, or debate with copies of itself nearly all make it generate far more text than a single chain of thought. Because generating more text raises accuracy by itself, a gain over one chain of thought does not show the method's idea is what helped. Wang et al. (2024) reported that a simple baseline, sampling the same question repeatedly and keeping the most common answer, often wins once budgets are comparable, but gave point estimates with no confidence intervals or significance tests. We rerun that comparison as a designed experiment: seven methods, open models of 1.5B, 3B and 7B parameters, two mathematics benchmarks, 150 questions each. We count every generated token, including those spent on critiques, reflections, debate turns and checking, and compare each method against repeated sampling at its own measured cost. All 36 comparisons are paired by question, with bootstrap intervals and multiplicity correction. No method is reliably better than repeated sampling at equal cost anywhere. Ten are reliably worse, all of them methods where the model inspects its own output, and all 18 self-inspection comparisons are negative. The two kinds of self-inspection part company as models grow. Choosing stops hurting: taking Best-of-N's eight samples and just counting the most common answer beats letting the model pick by 8.0 and 11.3 points at 1.5B, but only 2.0 and 1.3 at 7B, no longer distinguishable from zero. Rewriting does not recover: Self-Refine and a forced Reflexion stay 3.6 to 10.1 points below baseline at 7B. Reflexion as published never triggered its own retry on the smallest model. It judged itself correct every time and silently became a single chain of thought. We release code, prompts, all generations, and our verification scripts.