Does Inference Scaling Improve Reasoning Faithfulness? A Multi-Model Analysis of Self-Consistency Tradeoffs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06423v1
• Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2026 04:20:00 GMT
• Title: Does Inference Scaling Improve Reasoning Faithfulness? A Multi-Model Analysis of Self-Consistency Tradeoffs
• Abstract summary: Self-consistency has emerged as a popular technique for improving large language model accuracy on reasoning tasks.<n>We investigate a fundamental question that has not been studied before: does inference scaling improve reasoning faithfulness?<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical study across four frontier models (GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, Gemini-3-flash-preview, and DeepSeek-v3.2) on 100 GSM8K mathematical reasoning problems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Self-consistency has emerged as a popular technique for improving large language model accuracy on reasoning tasks. The approach is straightforward: generate multiple reasoning paths and select the most common answer through majority voting. While this reliably boosts accuracy, it remains unclear whether these gains reflect genuine improvements in reasoning quality. We investigate a fundamental question that has not been studied before: does inference scaling improve reasoning faithfulness? We conduct a comprehensive empirical study across four frontier models (GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, Gemini-3-flash-preview, and DeepSeek-v3.2) on 100 GSM8K mathematical reasoning problems. Our analysis employs bootstrap confidence intervals, McNemar's tests for paired comparisons, and Cohen's d effect sizes to quantify the effects rigorously. The results reveal striking differences across models that challenge common assumptions about self-consistency. GPT-5.2 shows the expected pattern: accuracy improves from 78% to 90% at N=5, with faithfulness remaining relatively stable (0.540 to 0.510). Claude Opus 4.5 tells a completely different story. Its accuracy actually drops from 78% to 74.3% while faithfulness jumps dramatically from 0.270 to 0.891 at N=5. DeepSeek-v3.2, already at 98% accuracy, shows ceiling effects with modest faithfulness gains (0.440 to 0.541). Gemini-3-flash improves from 81% to 86% accuracy with a slight faithfulness decrease (0.260 to 0.212). Problem difficulty analysis reveals that GPT-5.2 solves 82% of hard problems while breaking only 13% of easy ones. Claude, in contrast, breaks 23% of easy problems, explaining its accuracy decrease. These findings matter for practitioners: self-consistency is not universally beneficial, and teams should test their specific models before deployment. We release our code and provide practical recommendations for navigating these tradeoffs.

Related papers

• How reliable are LLMs when it comes to playing dice? [0.0]
  We investigate the reasoning capabilities of large language models through a controlled benchmarking study on discrete probability problems.<n>Models achieve an average accuracy of 0.96 on standard problems but only 0.59 on counterintuitive ones.<n> Embedding misleading suggestions in the prompt reduces performance by up to 34%, with no model proving immune.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T17:59:42Z)
• Automated Proving of Shannon-Type Entropy Inequalities via Fine-Tuned Language Models and Guided Tree Search [50.16356451328644]
  Proving Shannon-type entropy inequalities is a fundamental task in information theory.<n>We investigate whether small-scale large language models, fine-tuned on atomic proof steps, can automate this process.<n>We show that GPT-5.5 solves 1.7% samples under zero-shot prompting while Psitip solves 33.3% samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T05:43:12Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Premature Confidence for Better LLM Reasoning [76.16007941549857]
  Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps.<n>We find such a signal in how the model's confidence evolves during reasoning.<n>We exploit this in progressive confidence shaping, a reinforcement learning objective that trains models to update their confidence as they reason rather than commit early.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T04:42:45Z)
• Do Language Models Know When They'll Refuse? Probing Introspective Awareness of Safety Boundaries [0.0]
  Large language models are trained to refuse harmful requests, but can they accurately predict when they will refuse before responding?<n>We investigate this question through a systematic study where models first predict their refusal behavior, then respond in a fresh context.<n>Using signal detection theory (SDT), we find that all models exhibit high introspective sensitivity (d' = 2.4-3.5), but sensitivity drops substantially at safety boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T20:49:34Z)
• Consistency Amplifies: How Behavioral Variance Shapes Agent Accuracy [0.0]
  We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning.<n>We find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy.<n>Within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T04:39:13Z)
• Lie to Me: How Faithful Is Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Reasoning Models? [0.0]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has been proposed as a transparency mechanism for large language models in safety-critical deployments.<n>This study tests 12 open-weight reasoning models spanning 9 architectural families on 498 multiple-choice questions.<n>Across 41,832 inference runs, overall faithfulness rates range from 39.7% (Seed-1.6-Flash) to 89.9% (DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale) across model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T21:21:37Z)
• When Shallow Wins: Silent Failures and the Depth-Accuracy Paradox in Latent Reasoning [16.505918019260964]
  We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable predictions.<n>We show that 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T19:43:36Z)
• Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know? Kalshibench: A New Benchmark for Evaluating Epistemic Calibration via Prediction Markets [0.0]
  A well-calibrated model should express confidence that matches its actual accuracy -- when it claims 80% confidence, it should be correct 80% of the time.<n>We introduce textbfKalshiBench, a benchmark of 300 prediction market questions from Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated exchange.<n>We evaluate five frontier models -- Claude Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, DeepSeek-V3.2, Qwen3-235B, and Kimi-K2 -- and find textbfsystematic overconfidence across all models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T23:23:06Z)
• Reasoning Models Are More Easily Gaslighted Than You Think [85.84943447589511]
  We evaluate three state-of-the-art reasoning models, including OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash.<n>Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops following gaslighting negation prompts.<n>We introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:52:25Z)
• VeriThinker: Learning to Verify Makes Reasoning Model Efficient [52.74493506816969]
  Large Reasoning Models excel at complex tasks using Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Their tendency to overthinking leads to unnecessarily lengthy reasoning chains.<n>We introduce VeriThinker, a novel approach for CoT compression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T14:17:56Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• Accurate and Reliable Predictions with Mutual-Transport Ensemble [46.368395985214875]
  We propose a co-trained auxiliary model and adaptively regularizes the cross-entropy loss using Kullback-Leibler (KL) We show that MTE can simultaneously enhance both accuracy and uncertainty calibration. For example, on the CIFAR-100 dataset, our MTE method on ResNet34/50 achieved significant improvements compared to previous state-of-the-art method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T03:15:59Z)
• Certified Robust Accuracy of Neural Networks Are Bounded due to Bayes Errors [3.350980549219263]
  certified training improves robustness but also decreases accuracy noticeably. It is not clear whether there is a certain fundamental limit on achieving robustness whilst maintaining accuracy. By adopting Bayes error to robustness analysis, we investigate the limit of certified robust accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T13:23:05Z)
• BaRDa: A Belief and Reasoning Dataset that Separates Factual Accuracy and Reasoning Ability [35.743903178120895]
  BaRDa dataset contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid) We find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T18:55:43Z)
• Show Your Work with Confidence: Confidence Bands for Tuning Curves [51.12106543561089]
  tuning curves plot validation performance as a function of tuning effort. We present the first method to construct valid confidence bands for tuning curves. We validate our design with ablations, analyze the effect of sample size, and provide guidance on comparing models with our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T00:50:37Z)
• Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [51.21714389639417]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting boosts Language Models' (LM) performance on a gamut of reasoning tasks. We propose Faithful CoT, a reasoning framework involving two stages: Translation and Problem Solving. This guarantees that the reasoning chain provides a faithful explanation of the final answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T03:04:26Z)
• PRover: Proof Generation for Interpretable Reasoning over Rules [81.40404921232192]
  We propose a transformer-based model that answers binary questions over rule-bases and generates the corresponding proofs. Our model learns to predict nodes and edges corresponding to proof graphs in an efficient constrained training paradigm. We conduct experiments on synthetic, hand-authored, and human-paraphrased rule-bases to show promising results for QA and proof generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T15:47:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.