# Verifying Large Language Models' Reasoning Paths via Correlation Matrix Rank

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24299 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.24299/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12813/) (2023)
- [Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03188/) (2023)
- [Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.02336/) (2022)
- [Improving Language Models via Plug-and-Play Retrieval Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14002/) (2023)
- [Generalization Guarantees for Neural Networks via Harnessing the Low-rank Structure of the Jacobian](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.05392/) (2019)
- [What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.12157/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [UniCog: Uncovering Cognitive Abilities of LLMs through Latent Mind Space Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17897/) (2026)
- [Constraint-Rectified Training for Efficient Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.12526/) (2026)

## 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%.