Reproducing and Stress-Testing Two Approaches to LLM Reasoning Reliability: Test-Time Probability Aggregation and Logic-Representation Editing

We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models). The first, RPC, aggregates token probabilities and self-consistency at inference; the second, LCF, trains projectors that split hidden states into "content" and "logic" and edits the logic part toward a valid region. Validating such reliability claims matters because the original evaluations are run by each method's own authors and were never independently reproduced or stress-tested across models and domains, and LCF shipped no public code. We re-run RPC's published-path aggregation and re-implement LCF's projector, contrastive, and intervention pipeline, then extend both to text-to-SQL, legal extraction, fallacy identification, and precedent grading, and probe LCF's representation directly. RPC reproduces the original grid exactly on the authors' released reasoning paths; on four new domains its edge over self-consistency is never significant (ties or small mixed differences, paired p >= 0.28), and on BIRD, the one domain where we vary the budget, the edge grows with K as predicted but its largest gap (+2.5 accuracy at K=32, p=0.16) reverses to -0.25 when we enlarge the sample to n=200. LCF's logic-validity direction is real but weak (0.82 separability at the single best sub-layer versus 0.95 for a semantic-attribute control); its one positive effect (Qwen3 $Δ$Prob) is not significant (p=0.56), while it significantly reduces $Δ$Prob on two of the other three models.

LLM within MCP Matters: Measuring Inefficient Resource Utilization Driven by LLMs

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes how servers expose data and tools to Large Language Models (LLMs). A common server design embeds frequently used reference data, such as identifier lookup tables, directly in the server instructions: the system-prompt text a server hands to the host application. When a query concerns an entry of the embedded table, the model can act on it immediately instead of re-discovering the same information through a search tool. We test whether client LLMs actually consume such instruction-embedded data, reporting a 54,000-trial study across 24 LLMs (9 Claude, 6 Gemini, 9 GPT) on a production legal-information MCP server. A diagnostic condition that removes the competing search tool shows that failures are dominated by behavioral preference rather than missing capability. With search unavailable, 23 of 24 models read the embedded data reliably (hit ratio at least 98%); with a search tool merely present, 9 models drop below 15%. A 2^3 factorial analysis of three instruction-level interventions reveals strong interaction effects: combining all three restores at least 86% for 20 of 24 models, but individual interventions can backfire for specific model families. Per-server prompt engineering is therefore a workaround rather than a fix; we argue that MCP host applications should provide an explicit mechanism that places server instructions ahead of tool selection in the client LLM's deliberation.