# When is the consistent prediction likely to be a correct prediction?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05778 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.05778/

## Key facts

- Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 10 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Program Induction by Rationale Generation : Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.04146/) (2017)
- [Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02361/) (2019)
- [Solving General Arithmetic Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.01413/) (2016)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10200/) (2024)
- [Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15758/) (2024)
- [TOOLVERIFIER: Generalization to New Tools via Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14158/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models: What, How, Where, and How Well?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24235/) (2025)
- [Learning from Peers in Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.07787/) (2025)
- [Sample Complexity and Representation Ability of Test-time Scaling Paradigms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05295/) (2025)
- [Probing LLM World Models: Enhancing Guesstimation with Wisdom of Crowds Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17310/) (2025)
- [MARTI-MARS2: Scaling Multi-Agent Self-Search via Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.07848/) (2026)
- [Beyond the Frontier: Stochastic Backtracking for Efficient Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25143/) (2026)
- [A Survey on Self-Improving Test-Time Intelligence: Feedback-Driven Adapting, Learning, and Scaling at Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01679/) (2026)
- [MarkovScale: Towards Optimal Sequential Scaling at Inference Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01120/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) suggests that the most consistent answer obtained through large language models (LLMs) is more likely to be correct. In this paper, we challenge this argument and propose a nuanced correction. Our observations indicate that consistent answers derived through more computation i.e. longer reasoning texts, rather than simply the most consistent answer across all outputs, are more likely to be correct. This is predominantly because we demonstrate that LLMs can autonomously produce chain-of-thought (CoT) style reasoning with no custom prompts merely while generating longer responses, which lead to consistent predictions that are more accurate. In the zero-shot setting, by sampling Mixtral-8x7B model multiple times and considering longer responses, we achieve 86% of its self-consistency performance obtained through zero-shot CoT prompting on the GSM8K and MultiArith datasets. Finally, we demonstrate that the probability of LLMs generating a longer response is quite low, highlighting the need for decoding strategies conditioned on output length.