Operadic consistency: a label-free signal for compositional reasoning failures in LLMs

Detecting LLM reasoning failures at inference time without ground-truth labels has motivated a wide range of confidence baselines, including self-consistency, semantic entropy, and P(True), built on within-question sampling and self-evaluation. Operad theory, the formalism for systems built by iterated substitution, suggests a complementary diagnostic: a model's direct answer to a compositional query should agree with the answer it produces by composing a stated decomposition of the same query. We instantiate this idea as operadic consistency (OC), a per-question signal. Across twelve instruction-tuned LLMs (4B to 671B parameters, open-weights and closed-source) on four multi-hop QA datasets, OC is strongly correlated with accuracy on every dataset (Pearson $r \in [0.86, 0.94]$, all $p \leq 0.0004$), and is the only signal we evaluate with $r \geq 0.85$ uniformly across all four datasets. Chain-of-thought self-consistency (CoT-SC; Wang et al., 2023) matches OC on HotpotQA and DROP ($r = 0.93, 0.87$) but drops to $r \approx 0.45$ on MuSiQue and StrategyQA. At the per-question level, OC contributes information beyond CoT-SC and semantic entropy on every dataset (cluster-robust $p \leq 10^{-16}$ for the OC coefficient), and the conclusion is robust to additionally controlling for constructed decomposition-aware baselines ($p \leq 10^{-13}$). The same signal yields selective-prediction improvements (accuracy at fixed coverage) over a tuned CoT-SC baseline at the equal-cost $K = 3$ budget (AUARC lifts of +0.086 to +0.096 and AUROC lifts of +0.092 to +0.164; 95% CIs exclude zero on every cell). On five frontier thinking models, where the decomposition is extracted from the model's own chain of thought, the same equal-cost comparison gives positive selective-prediction point-estimate lift on all 16 (dataset, budget, metric) cells tested, with 95% CIs excluding zero on 12 of the 16.

How Language Models Fail: Token-Level Signatures of Committed and Persistent Reasoning Failures

Failures in language model reasoning emerge through distinct processes that leave identifiable signatures in the reasoning trace. We characterize these failures using token-level uncertainty signals, finding they arise through two empirically distinguishable processes. The first is committed failure, in which a model locks onto an incorrect reasoning path early in its trace. A central diagnostic signature is the commitment point, beyond which considering additional tokens hurt rather than help failure detection. In the second, persistent uncertainty, uncertainty instead accumulates throughout, and the full trace is needed to best distinguish failing from successful completions. These signatures reproduce across 23 model-dataset configurations, with the framework's falsifiable predictions holding in 20 of 23 cases, well above chance across both failure modes. Finally, we demonstrate our failure mode framework has direct implications for self-consistency, identifying when uncertainty signals complement it and when it can be selectively skipped. These results offer a foundation for understanding when LLM reasoning failures become detectable and for adapting detection strategies accordingly.