You ask your AI assistant to analyze a customer complaint and recommend a response. It suggests apologizing and offering a refund. You run the same request again. This time it recommends standing firm and pointing to the terms of service. Same input. Opposite conclusions.
Which answer is right? You have no idea. The AI gave you two confidently-stated recommendations with zero indication that the question was ambiguous or that it was uncertain about the answer.
Now your team is using AI for 50 different decisions daily. Some outputs are rock-solid. Some are essentially coin flips. But they all look identical: confident, well-structured text with no warning labels.
Self-consistency checking runs the same request multiple times and compares the results. When answers agree, confidence is high. When they diverge, you know the AI is uncertain before you act on bad advice.
INTELLIGENCE INFRASTRUCTURE - The quality control layer that reveals when AI is confident versus when it is guessing.
The infrastructure that makes AI intelligent and controllable.
Explore layerSelf-consistency checking is a simple but powerful technique: run the same request through the AI multiple times, then compare the outputs. If the AI gives you the same answer five times in a row, that answer is likely reliable. If you get five different answers, the AI is uncertain and you should not blindly trust any single response.
The technique works because AI models are probabilistic. When given a clear question with a clear answer, they converge on that answer consistently. When given an ambiguous question or one outside their knowledge, they produce variable outputs. By running multiple generations and measuring agreement, you surface the model's hidden uncertainty.
A confident-sounding answer is not the same as a reliable answer. Self-consistency checking separates the two.
Self-consistency checking solves a universal problem: how do you know if a single output is reliable or if you just happened to get one of many possible answers?
Generate the same request multiple times. Compare outputs for agreement. High agreement means high confidence. Low agreement means the AI is uncertain and the output needs human review or additional context.
Select a scenario and watch how multiple AI runs reveal confidence levels.
"I need this resolved by Friday or I will have to escalate to your leadership team. We have a major presentation Monday."
Run the same request N times (typically 3-7). For discrete outputs like classifications, take the majority answer. If 4 out of 5 runs say "urgent," classify as urgent with high confidence. If it's 3-2, flag as uncertain.
For open-ended outputs like summaries, exact matching fails. Instead, use embeddings or another AI call to measure semantic similarity between outputs. High similarity across runs means consistency; divergent meanings signal uncertainty.
Run the same request at different temperature settings. Consistent answers across both low and high temperature indicate robust understanding. Answers that flip with temperature changes reveal questions where the model lacks clear grounding.
Self-consistency checking sits between AI generation and the actions you take on outputs. It transforms single-shot AI calls into confidence-weighted decisions, feeding into quality control and validation layers.
Hover over any component to see what it does and why it's neededTap any component to see what it does and why it's needed
Animated lines show direct connections · Hover for detailsTap for details · Click to learn more
You run the same request twice. Both outputs match, so you assume high confidence. But two matching runs could easily be coincidence. With only two samples, a 50/50 coin flip looks consistent 50% of the time.
Instead: Run at least 3-5 iterations for meaningful confidence. More iterations for higher-stakes decisions.
You get 4 matching outputs and 1 outlier. You take the majority and ignore the outlier completely. But that outlier might contain a valid alternative interpretation or highlight edge cases the majority missed.
Instead: Log and review outliers. They often reveal ambiguity in the input or edge cases worth investigating.
You run the same prompt 5 times with identical settings. The outputs match, so you declare it reliable. But if your prompt has a systematic bias, all 5 runs will reproduce that bias consistently. Agreement does not mean correctness.
Instead: Vary temperature or rephrase prompts slightly across runs. True robustness means consistency across variations, not just repetition.
You've learned how to detect when AI outputs are reliable versus uncertain. The natural next step is using this information to build confidence scoring into your workflows.