Do LLMs Signal When They're Right? Evidence from Neuron Agreement
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) commonly boost reasoning via sample-evaluate-ensemble decoders, achieving label free gains without ground truth. However, prevailing strategies score candidates using only external outputs such as token probabilities, entropies, or self evaluations, and these signals can be poorly calibrated after post training. We instead analyze internal behavior based on neuron activations and uncover three findings: (1) external signals are low dimensional projections of richer internal dynamics; (2) correct responses activate substantially fewer unique neurons than incorrect ones throughout generation; and (3) activations from correct responses exhibit stronger cross sample agreement, whereas incorrect ones diverge. Motivated by these observations, we propose Neuron Agreement Decoding (NAD), an unsupervised best-of-N method that selects candidates using activation sparsity and cross sample neuron agreement, operating solely on internal signals and without requiring comparable textual outputs. NAD enables early correctness prediction within the first 32 generated tokens and supports aggressive early stopping. Across math and science benchmarks with verifiable answers, NAD matches majority voting; on open ended coding benchmarks where majority voting is inapplicable, NAD consistently outperforms Avg@64. By pruning unpromising trajectories early, NAD reduces token usage by 99% with minimal loss in generation quality, showing that internal signals provide reliable, scalable, and efficient guidance for label free ensemble decoding.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Oct 2025.
Builds on
16 of 21 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty25 Feb
- 2024Soft Self-Consistency Improves Language Model Agents20 Feb
- 2023Universal Self-Consistency for Large Language Model Generation29 Nov
Other references · 13
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2020GLU Variants Improve Transformercited by 1,724
- 2024MathScale: Scaling Instruction Tuning for Mathematical Reasoningcited by 144
- 2023Finding and Editing Multi-Modal Neurons in Pre-Trained Transformerscited by 36
- 2025Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metriccited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 10.
10 papers.
- 2026NEX: Neuron Explore-Exploit Scoring for Label-Free Chain-of-Thought Selection and Model Rankingcited by 4
- 2026Detecting Hallucinations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Semantic-level Internal Reasoning Graphcited by 2
- 2026SliceGraph: Mapping Process Isomers in Multi-Run Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 2
- 2026Does the Same Token Mean the Same State? MoE Routing as Signal for Reasoning Controlcited by 2
- 2026Neuron-Aware Data Selection for Annotation-Free LLM Self-Distillationcited by 1
- 2026Less Languages, Less Tokens: An Efficient Unified Logic Cross-lingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Frameworkcited by 0
- 2026DenoiseRL: Bootstrapping Reasoning Models to Recover from Noisy Prefixescited by 0
- 2026Neuron-Aware Active Few-Shot Learning for LLMscited by 0
- 2026Disagree to Explore, Agree to Commit: Routing-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Software Agentscited by 0
- 2026From Concentration to Differentiation and Back: Routing Effective Rank in MoE Reasoning Cohortscited by 0
- 2026From Concentration to Differentiation and Back: Routing Effective Rank in MoE Reasoning Cohorts6 Sep 2026
- 2026Disagree to Explore, Agree to Commit: Routing-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Software Agents23 Aug 2026
- 2026Neuron-Aware Data Selection for Annotation-Free LLM Self-Distillation2 Jul 2026
- 2026Neuron-Aware Active Few-Shot Learning for LLMs2 Jul 2026
- 2026Does the Same Token Mean the Same State? MoE Routing as Signal for Reasoning Control22 Jun 2026
- 2026DenoiseRL: Bootstrapping Reasoning Models to Recover from Noisy Prefixes27 May 2026
- 2026SliceGraph: Mapping Process Isomers in Multi-Run Chain-of-Thought Reasoning14 May 2026
- 2026Less Languages, Less Tokens: An Efficient Unified Logic Cross-lingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Framework22 Apr 2026
- 2026NEX: Neuron Explore-Exploit Scoring for Label-Free Chain-of-Thought Selection and Model Ranking5 Feb 2026
- 2026Detecting Hallucinations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Semantic-level Internal Reasoning Graph6 Jan 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024An Investigation of Neuron Activation as a Unified Lens to Explain Chain-of-Thought Eliciting Arithmetic Reasoning of LLMs
- 2026Beyond representational alignment with brain-guided language models for robust reasoning
- 2026Identifying and Transferring Reasoning-Critical Neurons: Improving LLM Inference Reliability via Activation Steering
- 2026Do LLMs and VLMs Share Neurons for Inference? Evidence and Mechanisms of Cross-Modal Transfer
- 2025Sample Smart, Not Hard: Correctness-First Decoding for Better Reasoning in LLMs
- 2025Thinking, Faithful and Stable: Mitigating Hallucinations in LLMs
- 2026Neuron Level Analysis of Large Language Model in Legal Domain Reasoning
- 2026LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning