The Path of Least Resistance: Guiding LLM Reasoning Trajectories with Prefix Consensus
Ishan Jindal, Sai Prashanth Akuthota, Jayant Taneja, Sachin Dev Sharma

TL;DR
PoLR is a novel inference-time method that guides large language model reasoning by clustering prefixes, reducing computation and latency while maintaining or improving accuracy compared to Self-Consistency.
Contribution
PoLR introduces a prefix clustering approach that significantly improves inference efficiency of LLM reasoning without model fine-tuning, complementing existing methods.
Findings
Reduces token usage by up to 60%
Lowers latency by up to 50%
Matches or exceeds Self-Consistency accuracy on multiple benchmarks
Abstract
Large language models achieve strong reasoning performance, but inference strategies such as Self-Consistency (SC) are computationally expensive, as they fully expand all reasoning traces. We introduce PoLR (Path of Least Resistance), the first inference-time method to leverage prefix consistency for compute-efficient reasoning. PoLR clusters short prefixes of reasoning traces, identifies the dominant cluster, and expands all paths in that cluster, preserving the accuracy benefits of SC while substantially reducing token usage and latency. Our theoretical analysis, framed via mutual information and entropy, explains why early reasoning steps encode strong signals predictive of final correctness. Empirically, PoLR consistently matches or exceeds SC across GSM8K, MATH500, AIME24/25, and GPQA-DIAMOND, reducing token usage by up to 60% and wall-clock latency by up to 50%. Moreover, PoLR is…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- Innovative & Practical: Cleverly solves the high cost of SC by using prefix consensus to filter paths early, a novel and practical approach. - High Efficiency: Achieves impressive results, reducing token/latency costs by ~50% without sacrificing accuracy. - Well-Supported: Backed by solid theoretical analysis (information theory, structural skew) and extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks. - Plug-and-Play: A simple, training-free method that is easy to implement and comple
- While the MI and skew analyses are insightful, they are not empirically validated. Quantitative measures linking $I(Z;Y)$ to observed behavior are missing. - Cluster-Dependent: The method's success hinges on identifying the correct dominant cluster; it could potentially filter out correct but less common reasoning paths. - Limited on Certain Tasks: Shows weaker performance on tasks with low lexical overlap (e.g., GPQA-DIAMOND), where the prefix consistency signal is faint. - Hyperparameter Dis
1. The paper conducts comprehensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The main results show that it consistently outperforms existing approaches. 2. The idea is both novel and compelling, and PoLR is straightforward to implement and fully compatible with existing language models.
I don't have many comments regarding the weaknesses; however, the primary issue is that the paper is not well written and is difficult to follow. For instance, I had to consult referenced papers to understand prerequisite concepts such as the definition of a prefix and the detailed observations related to prefix consistency. It would be better if the paper were more self-contained. Nonetheless, given the strong experimental results, I lean toward a positive assessment of the paper.
1. The paper builds on a compelling empirical finding: early reasoning steps in LLMs already encode signals predictive of correctness. This observation is both intuitively appealing and empirically validated, where clustering short prefixes achieves nearly identical accuracy to full SC. 2. The paper notes some accuracy drops (especially on AIME24/25) but doesn’t deeply analyze why PoLR fails there. Qualitative error analyses or visualizations of cluster distributions could clarify how prefix div
1. Uses simple TF–IDF clustering, which may miss deeper semantic similarities between reasoning traces. 2. Accuracy drops on some datasets (e.g., AIME24/25) are not fully explored or explained. 3. Mutual information argument is mostly qualitative and lacks empirical validation. 4. Clustering approach may not scale efficiently when many samples (large N) are generated. 5. Some sections are dense, with mixed implementation and theoretical details; figures could be clearer.
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Software System Performance and Reliability
