Verifying Large Language Models' Reasoning Paths via Correlation Matrix Rank
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite the strong reasoning ability of large language models~(LLMs), they are prone to errors and hallucinations. As a result, how to check their outputs effectively and efficiently has become a critical problem in their applications. Existing checking methods heavily rely on external resources, such as trained verifiers (e.g., process/outcome reward models) or elaborate prompts, which lead to high computational overhead and are only applicable to specific domains. In this paper, we investigate whether the internal behaviors of LLMs have already implied the credibility of their reasoning paths. Specifically, we find that the rank of the correlation matrix between the input problem and the output reasoning path is a robust indicator of reasoning correctness. Different from other correctness indicators for LLMs, the calculation of the correlation matrix only relies on the LLM itself, which avoids the hassle of training a separate model or designing complicated prompts. Based on it, we design a simple, plug-and-play Self-Indicator method to reweight candidate reasoning paths, which achieves significant performance improvements than other voting and verification methods with very few computational overhead. Our experiments across multiple LLMs of varying scales and model families have further shown the effectiveness of Self-Indicator. It achieves over 75% accuracy in distinguishing correct reasoning paths from incorrect ones, and, in turn, improves the accuracies on three reasoning benchmarks by more than 8%.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Oct 2025.
Builds on
8 of 35 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis11 Dec
- 2022Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifier6 Jun
Other references · 6
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2023Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedbackcited by 351
- 2023Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategiescited by 236
- 2023Improving Language Models via Plug-and-Play Retrieval Feedbackcited by 87
- 2019Generalization Guarantees for Neural Networks via Harnessing the Low-rank Structure of the Jacobiancited by 67
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey
- 2026Enhancing reasoning accuracy in large language models during inference time
- 2023Chain-of-Thought Hub: A Continuous Effort to Measure Large Language Models' Reasoning Performance
- 2024Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification
- 2025Beyond Chains of Thought: Benchmarking Latent-Space Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models
- 2025Advancing Reasoning in Large Language Models: Promising Methods and Approaches
- 2024LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning
- 2025Towards Reasoning Ability of Small Language Models