Locating Answer-Correctness Signals in Frozen Large Language Models

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 encode rich information in their hidden states. This work asks whether the correctness of code that Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 has not yet generated is already legible in its hidden states, evaluated on a set of 444 tasks from LiveCodeBench. The correctness of the model's first-attempt code is linearly decodable from the hidden state at the final prompt token, captured before any output token is generated, with a leakage-free held-out AUC of 0.881 +/- 0.008 across 50 outer splits. To assess whether this signal is explained by prompt length, each hidden state dimension is residualized with respect to its linear effect. The probe still achieves an AUC of 0.842 +/- 0.010, substantially above a logistic prompt-length baseline of 0.657 +/- 0.014, and none of the nonlinear models tested improves upon it. A companion question about whether self-repair leaves a geometric signature in the model's hidden states could not be answered, because successful repairs following a failed first attempt are too rare in this setting to support the analysis. The contribution is both empirical and methodological, providing evidence that pre-generation hidden states contain a robust signal of eventual code correctness, together with a confound-control diagnostic that quantifies how much of that signal survives adjustment for prompt length.

Code generated by modern language models often reads naturally. Yet, it also often fails to implement what was asked. This should be no surprise, as research shows the models' own confidence signals are poorly calibrated with actual correctness. A promising way to assess correctness looks inside the model: by contrasting the hidden states of correct and incorrect programs, recent work captured an internal signal of code correctness that is able to judge candidate solutions better than the model's token-level or stated confidence, with no test execution. However, this signal was captured under one particular way, leaving open an important question: whether it reflects a robust property of the model or an artifact of that choice. We study this question systematically, varying how the signal is extracted from the model internals. Besides this, we also ask if the signal's quality is limited by the data used to extract it, by constructing program pairs that differ only in the fault that makes them incorrect. Our results show that no single configuration is best, and that isolating the fault does not help.