| <!DOCTYPE html> |
| <html> |
| <head> |
| <meta charset="utf-8"> |
| <meta name="description" |
| content="Certified Self-Consistency: Statistical Guarantees and Test-Time Training for Reliable Reasoning in LLMs."> |
| <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> |
| <title>Certified Self-Consistency: Statistical Guarantees and Test-Time Training for Reliable Reasoning in LLMs</title> |
|
|
| <link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Google+Sans|Noto+Sans|Castoro" |
| rel="stylesheet"> |
|
|
| <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/bulma/0.9.4/css/bulma.min.css"> |
| <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/font-awesome/6.4.0/css/all.min.css"> |
| <link rel="stylesheet" |
| href="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/jpswalsh/academicons@1/css/academicons.min.css"> |
| |
| <style> |
| .publication-title { |
| font-family: 'Google Sans', sans-serif; |
| } |
| .publication-authors { |
| font-family: 'Google Sans', sans-serif; |
| } |
| .dnerf { |
| font-weight: bold; |
| color: #3273dc; |
| } |
| |
| h1.title, |
| h2.title, |
| h3.title, |
| h2.subtitle, |
| h3.subtitle { |
| text-align: center; |
| } |
| .objective-list { |
| list-style-type: lower-roman; |
| padding-left: 1.5em; |
| } |
| .objective-title { |
| font-weight: bold; |
| } |
| </style> |
|
|
| <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"></script> |
| <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mathjax@3/es5/tex-mml-chtml.js"></script> |
|
|
| </head> |
| <body> |
|
|
| <section class="hero"> |
| <div class="hero-body"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column has-text-centered"> |
| <h1 class="title is-1 publication-title">Certified Self-Consistency: Statistical Guarantees and Test-Time Training for Reliable Reasoning in LLMs</h1> |
| <div class="is-size-5 publication-authors"> |
| <span class="author-block"> |
| <a href="https://paulaoak.github.io/">Paula Cordero-Encinar</a><sup>1</sup>,</span> |
| <span class="author-block"> |
| <a href="https://www.ma.imperial.ac.uk/~aduncan/">Andrew B. Duncan</a><sup>1</sup></span> |
| </div> |
|
|
| <div class="is-size-5 publication-authors"> |
| <span class="author-block"><sup>1</sup>Imperial College London</span> |
| </div> |
|
|
| <div class="column has-text-centered"> |
| <div class="publication-links"> |
| |
| <span class="link-block"> |
| <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.17472" |
| class="external-link button is-normal is-rounded is-dark"> |
| <span class="icon"> |
| <i class="fas fa-file-pdf"></i> |
| </span> |
| <span>Paper</span> |
| </a> |
| </span> |
| <span class="link-block"> |
| <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17472" |
| class="external-link button is-normal is-rounded is-dark"> |
| <span class="icon"> |
| <i class="ai ai-arxiv"></i> |
| </span> |
| <span>arXiv</span> |
| </a> |
| </span> |
| |
| <span class="link-block"> |
| <a href="https://github.com/paulaoak/certified_self_consistency" |
| class="external-link button is-normal is-rounded is-dark"> |
| <span class="icon"> |
| <i class="fab fa-github"></i> |
| </span> |
| <span>Code</span> |
| </a> |
| </span> |
| </div> |
| <div class="is-size-5 mt-3"> |
| <span class="has-text-weight-bold">TLDR:</span> We provide a unified statistical framework of when and why self-consistency yields certifiable reliability in reasoning models, and how test-time adaptation can further reduce the computational cost of this certification. |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
| <section class="section" style="padding: 10px 0;"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-full-width"> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <img src="condorcet_framework.png" alt="Certified self-consistency workflow" style="width: 100%;"> |
| <figcaption style="color:#6b7280; font-size: 0.9rem; margin-top: 8px;"> |
| Given a prompt, the model generates multiple reasoning rollouts from the |
| reference distribution \(\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(\cdot|{pr})\). |
| The resulting terminal answers are aggregated via majority voting, viewed |
| as mode estimation under sampling uncertainty. |
| The Martingale Majority Certificate (MMC) monitors the empirical margin and |
| provides an <em>anytime-valid</em> stopping rule for certification. |
| Test-time training with SNR or entropy-based adaptation sharpens the |
| terminal distribution, thereby increasing the |
| signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and reducing the number of samples required for |
| certification. |
| </div> |
| <div style="text-align:center; margin: 24px 0;"> |
| <img src="mmc_point_shared.gif" alt="MMC stopping rule in action" style="width: 80%;"> |
| <figcaption style="color:#6b7280; font-size: 0.9rem; margin-top: 8px;"> |
| MMC stopping rule in action. |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
| <section class="hero"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="hero-body"> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
| |
| <section class="section"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| |
| <div class="columns is-centered has-text-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-four-fifths"> |
| <h2 class="title is-3">Abstract</h2> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| Recent advances such as self-consistency and test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) improve the |
| reliability of large language models (LLMs) without additional supervision, yet their underlying |
| mechanisms and statistical guarantees remain poorly understood. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| We present a unified framework for certifiable inference in LLMs, showing that majority voting provides a |
| statistical certificate of self-consistency: under mild assumptions, the aggregated answer coincides with |
| the mode of the model’s terminal distribution with high probability. We derive finite-sample and anytime-valid |
| concentration bounds that quantify this confidence, and introduce the Martingale Majority Certificate (MMC), a |
| sequential stopping rule that adaptively determines when sufficient samples have been drawn. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| We further prove that label-free post-training methods such as TTRL implicitly sharpen the answer distribution |
| by exponentially tilting it toward its mode, thereby reducing the number of samples required for certification. |
| Building on this insight, we propose new post-training objectives that explicitly optimise this trade-off between |
| sharpness and bias. Together, these results explain and connect two central test-time scaling strategies, |
| self-consistency and TTRL, within a single statistical framework for label-free, certifiable reliability in |
| reasoning LLMs. |
| </p> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
|
|
| <section class="section"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-full-width"> |
| <h3 class="title is-4">Setting</h3> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| LLM rollouts can be formalised as a stochastic decoding process |
| \[ |
| (Y_t)_{t \ge 0}, \quad Y_t \in \mathcal{V}, |
| \] |
| where \( \mathcal{V} \) is the vocabulary and the process is initialised by a prompt \( pr \). |
| At each step the model samples |
| \[ |
| Y_{t+1} \sim \pi_\phi(\cdot \mid Y_{\le t}, pr), |
| \] |
| from a conditional policy parametrised by weights \( \phi \). |
| The <em>thinking phase</em> consists of the random evolution of this sequence until a termination token is produced, |
| at which point the model emits the response, starting from a random stopping time \( \tau \). |
| We denote by |
| \[ |
| X := g(Y_{\tau:}) \in \mathcal{A} |
| \] |
| the canonicalised terminal answer, obtained by applying a deterministic extraction map \( g \). |
| The induced terminal distribution \( \mathbf{p} = \mathrm{Law}(X) \) over the answer set \( \mathcal{A} \) captures the model’s epistemic uncertainty about its own final output. |
| In an ideal reasoning model, we would like rollouts to exhibit rich variability in \( Y_{1:\tau-1} \) (the reasoning trajectories), yet concentrate mass in the final answer \( X \) (the outcome). |
| That is, we seek <em>diversity over reasoning paths, but consistency over terminal responses</em>. |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| In supervised or verifier-equipped settings, correctness can be externally validated. |
| In open-ended reasoning tasks, such supervision is unavailable. |
| In the absence of external rewards, a model must act relative to its own uncertainty. |
| Letting \( a \in \mathcal{A} \) denote the chosen output and \( X \sim \mathbf{p} \) the stochastic model response, the expected 0–1 loss is \( \mathbb{E}[1\{a \neq X\}] \). |
| The Bayes-optimal decision minimising this loss is the mode |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| \[ |
| c^\star = \arg\max_j p_j, |
| \] |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| which corresponds to the model’s most probable self-consistent answer. |
| Hence, under symmetric loss, recovering the mode is the optimal <em>model-relative</em> prediction. |
| When a verifier is absent, certifying that a model’s reported answer coincides with this mode provides a natural measure of reliability. |
| </p> |
| </div> |
|
|
| <h3 class="title is-4">Statistical Certificates of Self-Consistency</h3> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| In practice, the terminal probabilities \( \mathbf{p} \) are unknown and can be estimated only through multiple |
| independent rollouts \( X_1,\ldots,X_n \). |
| The simplest estimator of the mode is the <em>majority vote</em> |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| \[ |
| \widehat{c}_n := \arg\max_j \hat{p}_{n,j}, |
| \qquad |
| \hat{p}_{n,j} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathbf{1}\{X_i=j\}. |
| \] |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| This estimator forms the basis of <em>self-consistency</em> test-time scaling. |
| From a statistical standpoint, majority voting is the Bayes-optimal estimator of \( c^\star \) under 0--1 loss, |
| and an associated upper bound on \( \mathbb{P}[\widehat{c}_n \neq c^\star] \) provides a |
| <em>statistical certificate of self-consistency</em>: a quantitative guarantee that the aggregated answer |
| coincides with the mode of the terminal law \( \mathbf{p} \) with high probability. |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| Under standard regularity conditions the majority-vote estimator is consistent, \( \Pr[\widehat{c}_n = c^\star] \to 1 \) as \( n \to \infty \). |
| <strong>A more practical question concerns the finite-sample regime: how large must \( n \) be to guarantee, with |
| confidence \( 1-\varepsilon \), that \( \widehat{c}_n \) already equals \( c^\star \)?</strong> |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| To address this, we derive finite-sample and asymptotic certificates, leveraging Hoeffding, Bernstein, |
| Chernoff–Markov, and Sanov concentration bounds for the error probability \( \mathbb{P}[\widehat{c}_n \neq c^\star] \). |
| These bounds clarify how reliability scales with the ensemble size and with the <em>mode margin</em> |
| \( \delta = p_{c^\star} - p_{j^\star} \), i.e., the gap between the top two answer probabilities. |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| If the probabilities \( p_j \) were known, one could invert these bounds to determine the number of samples required |
| to achieve a desired confidence \( 1-\varepsilon \). |
| In reality, both \( p_j \) and \( \delta \) must be estimated on the fly. |
| This motivates a <em>sequential</em> formulation: <strong>as rollouts arrive, can we determine adaptively when the current majority |
| is statistically reliable?</strong> |
| |
| We introduce the <em>Martingale Majority Certificate (MMC)</em>, a sequential procedure that adaptively tests whether the empirical leader remains significantly ahead of its nearest rival and |
| of all others combined. This guarantees that at the (random) stopping time \( \tau \), majority vote coincides with the true mode with high probability: |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| \[ |
| \Pr[\widehat{c}_{n_\tau} \neq c^\star] \le \varepsilon, |
| \] |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| thus providing an <em>anytime-valid certificate</em> of model self-consistency. |
| </p> |
| </div> |
|
|
| <h3 class="title is-4">Martingale Majority Certificate Stopping Rule</h3> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| Our proposed stopping rule adaptively decides when to stop sampling rollouts while controlling the error of returning the empirical majority. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| The central challenge in the LLM setting is the potentially large number of possible outcomes. |
| A naive stopping rule would require pairwise comparisons of the empirical probabilities across all classes |
| \( i \neq j \), \( i,j \in \{1, \dots, k\} \), which becomes computationally prohibitive as \( k \) grows. |
| </p> |
|
|
| <p> |
| To address this, we exploit the observation that the mass of the terminal law is typically concentrated on a few classes \( m \ll k \). |
| Thus, instead of considering all classes individually, we aggregate votes into three categories: |
| <ul> |
| <li>the current leader \( \widehat{c}_n \),</li> |
| <li>the runner-up</li> |
| <li>all the <em>others</em>.</li> |
| </ul> |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Accordingly, we perform two tests: leader vs runner-up and leader vs <em>others</em>. |
| </p> |
| <div style="text-align:center; margin: 24px 0;"> |
| <img src="mmc_algorithm.png" alt="MMC algorithm" width="70%"> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
| <section class="section"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-full-width"> |
| <h3 class="title is-4">Optimising Sample Efficiency with Test-Time Training</h3> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| Our ultimate goal is to minimise the number of samples required from the LLM for the majority vote |
| to return the correct answer with high confidence \(1-\varepsilon\). The expected stopping time of the MMC scales approximately as |
| <span id="eq-expected_number_samples"> |
| \[ |
| N \;\approx\; |
| \frac{2(p_{\hat c}+p_{j^\star})}{(p_{\hat c}-p_{j^\star})^{2}} \,\log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}, |
| \] |
| </span> |
| so that small mode margins |
| <span>\( \delta = p_{\hat c}-p_{j^\star} \)</span> |
| lead to rapidly increasing sample requirements. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| <strong>The key question is whether test-time adaptation can reshape the terminal distribution to enlarge this margin, thereby improving sample efficiency.</strong> |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| We show that the optimal policy corresponding to the KL-regularised objective proposed in <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.16084">TTRL</a> is an exponentially tilted version of the base model. |
| Decreasing the regularisation parameter consistently increases the margin and reduces the number of samples required for certification. |
| </p> |
| <p><strong style="font-size: 1.3em;">Two new test-time RL objectives</strong></p> |
| |
| <p> |
| We introduce two label-free group-level rewards designed to optimise the trade-off between sharpness |
| and bias. Let \( \mathbf{X} = (X_1, \dots, X_n) \) be a set of answers arising from rollouts |
| \( \mathbf{Y} =(Y_1, \ldots, Y_n) \) for a given prompt, with \( \widehat{c}_n \) denoting the majority vote |
| and \( j_n^\star \) the runner-up. Define \( N_j = \sum_i \mathbf{1}\{X_i=j\} \). |
| </p> |
|
|
| <ol class="objective-list"> |
| <li> |
| <span class="objective-title">SNR-based reward.</span> |
| <p> |
| Directly leveraging the SNR as a driving factor in the efficiency of the MMC scheme we introduce the first reward |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| \[ |
| r^{(1)}_n(\mathbf{Y}) |
| = \widehat{\mathrm{SNR}}(\Delta_{j^\star_n})(\mathbf{X}) |
| = \frac{(N_{\widehat c_n}-N_{j^\star_n})^{2}} |
| {n \left(N_{\widehat c_n}+N_{j^\star_n}\right) |
| -(N_{\widehat c_n}-N_{j^\star_n})^{2}} |
| \;\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}\; |
| \mathrm{SNR}(\Delta_{j^\star_n}). |
| \] |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| This objective aims to directly maximise \( \text{SNR}(\Delta_{j_n^\star}) \), which is equivalent to minimising the expected |
| number of samples required to obtain statistical certificates for the majority vote. |
| </p> |
| </li> |
|
|
| <li> |
| <span class="objective-title">Entropy-based reward.</span> |
| <p> |
| As we want to encourage a more peaked terminal distribution, another natural option is negative entropy, i.e. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| \[ |
| r^{(2)}_n(\mathbf{Y}) |
| = \widehat H_n(\mathbf{X}) |
| = \sum_{j:N_j>0}\frac{N_j}{n} \log \frac{N_j}{n} |
| \;\xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{}\; |
| \sum_j p_j \log p_j = -H(p). |
| \] |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Maximising \( \widehat H_n \) <em>minimises</em> the Shannon entropy of the answer |
| distribution, encouraging a sharper, lower-entropy terminal distribution. |
| 🚨<strong>Important:</strong> The tempering sharpens only the distribution of final answers, not the full sequence distribution. |
| This gives us the best of both worlds: promoting certainty when providing a final answer, but permitting exploration of diverse |
| pathways during the chain-of-thought reasoning process. |
| </p> |
| </li> |
| </ol> |
| <div style="text-align:center; margin: 24px 0;"> |
| <img src="ttt_performance_math500.png" alt="Performance TTT" width="100%"> |
| <figcaption style="color:#6b7280; font-size: 0.9rem; margin-top: 8px;"> |
| Pass@1 performance after test-time training with SNR and entropy-based rewards relative to the base models. |
| </figcaption> |
| </div> |
|
|
| <p> |
| We observe in the table below that the number of samples required under the MMC stopping rule decreases after applying test-time training, relative to the pre-trained model. |
| That is, test-time training sharpens the terminal answer distribution, increasing the mode margin and thus reducing the number of samples required for certification. |
| </p> |
| <div style="text-align:center; margin: 24px 0;"> |
| <img src="table_mmc.png" alt="Performance TTT" width="75%"> |
| <figcaption style="color:#6b7280; font-size: 0.9rem; margin-top: 8px;"> |
| Majority vote accuracy and required number of samples under the MMC stopping rule (✅) at confidence levels 0.1 and 0.4 for the pre-trained model and after test-time training with SNR-based rewards. Performance is compared to that obtained using the full sample budget (❌). |
| </figcaption> |
| </div> |
| </ul> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
| <section class="section"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-full-width"> |
| <h3 class="title is-4">SNR as a label-free estimator of task difficulty</h3> |
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| Our experiments reveal a notable empirical regularity: the |
| <em>signal-to-noise ratio</em> (SNR) of the margin variable |
| \(\Delta_{j^\star} = \mathbf 1\{X = c^\star\} - \mathbf 1\{X = j^\star\}\), |
| which quantifies the sharpness of the model’s terminal answer distribution, |
| correlates strongly with external measures of problem difficulty. |
| Across the MATH-500 benchmark, harder problems exhibit systematically lower and more variable SNR values, |
| while easier problems yield sharply peaked distributions concentrated around a single answer. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| This behaviour is non-trivial: the model has no access to ground-truth difficulty labels, yet its own epistemic |
| uncertainty, reflected in the variability of its rollouts, aligns closely with these labels. |
| <strong>This suggests an emergent form of calibration in reasoning LLMs</strong>: |
| without explicit supervision or external verification, models appear to ''know when they do not know.'' |
| In statistical terms, the SNR acts as a label-free proxy for epistemic uncertainty and, consequently, for task difficulty. |
| </p> |
| <div style="text-align:center; margin: 24px 0;"> |
| <img src="QWEN-MATH-1.5B_violin_maj100_SNR.png" alt="SNR distribution qwen-math-1.5B." style="width: 48%;margin-right: 1%;"> |
| <img src="QWEN-MATH-7B_violin_maj100_SNR.png" alt="SNR distribution qwen-math-7B." style="width: 48%;margin-left: 1%;"> |
| <figcaption style="color:#6b7280; font-size: 0.9rem; margin-top: 8px;"> |
| Distribution of the estimated SNR when using MMC stopping rule with \(\varepsilon = 0.1\) and \(N_{\text{budget}}=100\). Results are obtained after applying test-time training with SNR-based rewards.</figcaption> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
| <section class="section"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop"> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-full-width"> |
| <h3 class="title is-4">Conclusion</h3> |
|
|
| <div class="content has-text-justified"> |
| <p> |
| <strong>Our results unify several strands of recent work on reliable inference in LLMs, self-consistency, |
| adaptive compute allocation, and test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL), under a common |
| statistical perspective.</strong> Through this lens, majority voting emerges naturally as a means of estimating the mode of the terminal distribution. |
| The validity of the majority vote as an estimate of the mode can be certified by finite-sample and asymptotic bounds. The Martingale Majority Certificate (MMC) |
| extends this view by providing an operational test-time algorithm that determines, from model |
| rollouts alone, when a response is statistically self-consistent. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| Furthermore, <strong>we shed light on the underlying mechanism by which TTRL and related post-training |
| approaches improve reasoning reliability: KL-regularised optimisation corresponds to an |
| exponential tilting of the terminal law, sharpening it around its mode and increasing the |
| signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the margin variable.</strong> This insight explains empirical observations of |
| enhanced consistency after test-time adaptation, and motivates new label-free objectives such as |
| our SNR- and entropy-based rewards, which explicitly target this trade-off between sharpness and |
| bias. Unlike prior work that tunes temperature or per-token distributions, our formulation operates |
| on the terminal marginal, preserving exploration during reasoning while promoting confidence in the |
| final answer. |
| </p> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
| <section class="section" id="BibTeX"> |
| <div class="container is-max-desktop content"> |
| <h2 class="title">BibTeX</h2> |
| <pre><code>@article{corderoencinar2025certified, |
| author = {Paula Cordero-Encinar and Andrew B. Duncan}, |
| title = {Certified Self-Consistency: Statistical Guarantees and Test-Time Training for Reliable Reasoning in LLMs}, |
| journal = {arXiv:2510.17472}, |
| year = {2025}, |
| }</code></pre> |
| </div> |
| </section> |
|
|
| <footer class="footer"> |
| <div class="container"> |
| <div class="content has-text-centered"> |
| <a class="icon-link" href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.17472" class="external-link"> |
| <i class="fas fa-file-pdf"></i> |
| </a> |
| <a class="icon-link" href="https://github.com/paulaoak/certified_self_consistency" class="external-link"> |
| <i class="fab fa-github"></i> |
| </a> |
| </div> |
| <div class="columns is-centered"> |
| <div class="column is-8"> |
| <div class="content"> |
| <p> |
| This website template is borrowed from <a href="https://nerfies.github.io/">Nerfies</a>, |
| licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative |
| Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License</a>. |
| </p> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </div> |
| </footer> |
|
|
| </body> |
| </html> |
|
|