# Stable Answers, Unfinished Reasoning: Why Self-Consensus Is Not a Safe Early-Exit Signal

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09989 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09989/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21187/) (2024)
- [Adaptive Computation Time for Recurrent Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.08983/) (2016)
- [Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11860/) (2023)
- [Escape Sky-high Cost: Early-stopping Self-Consistency for Multi-step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10480/) (2024)
- [Stop When Reasoning Converges: Semantic-Preserving Early Exit for Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.17672/) (2026)
- [Early Stopping for Large Reasoning Models via Confidence Dynamics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04930/) (2026)
- [When Does Learning to Stop Help? A Cost-Aware Study of Early Exits in Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30852/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A natural way to cut reasoning-model inference cost is to repeatedly probe a single partial trajectory for its current answer and stop once probes agree -- self-consensus. We ask whether any such rule is both safe and token-saving, and whether one can be selected once and reused. A preregistered sweep of 3,520 consensus rules, replayed on frozen trajectories from two models and three benchmarks, clears none of three acceptance gates fixed in advance; the frontier reproduces on a held-out split and on two unseen models -- while a boundary-confidence control (DEER) swept through the same pipeline clears all three. The reason lies in the signal: agreement establishes that the current answer persists under a fixed probing procedure, not that the reasoning has terminated -- a consensus-termination gap. Stopping on it commits non-terminal answers. At a rule still saving 32% of the tokens, one stop in nine fires on an answer the trajectory itself later abandons, and most of those stops cut off a correction it would otherwise have made. Widening the agreement window does not remove them: the share levels off near 7%, and by then the saving has fallen to 8%. Probe re-wording and a hand-labelled error taxonomy show the agreed answer is often a placeholder the model had not settled on. Used on its own as the stop signal, agreement fails not because it is insufficiently strict, but because it repeatedly measures the wrong object.