The DOI matches its DataCite record; 79 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Chain-of-thought prompting combined with pre-trained large language models has achieved encouraging results on complex reasoning tasks. In this paper, we propose a new decoding strategy, self-consistency, to replace the naive greedy decoding used in chain-of-thought prompting. It first samples a diverse set of reasoning paths instead of only taking the greedy one, and then selects the most consistent answer by marginalizing out the sampled reasoning paths. Self-consistency leverages the intuition that a complex reasoning problem typically admits multiple different ways of thinking leading to its unique correct answer. Our extensive empirical evaluation shows that self-consistency boosts the performance of chain-of-thought prompting with a striking margin on a range of popular arithmetic and commonsense reasoning benchmarks, including GSM8K (+17.9%), SVAMP (+11.0%), AQuA (+12.2%), StrategyQA (+6.4%) and ARC-challenge (+3.9%).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“an agent team can adopt a self-consistency approach where multiple agents independently work on the same problem and then vote or converge on an answer [19].”
From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In more general tasks without verification tools, we can conduct techniques like majority vote, self-consistency, and best-of-n to choose the most promising one from candidate responses”
From Rethinking Mixture-of-Agents: Is Mixing Different Large Language Models Beneficial? (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“It is naturally suited to closed-ended tasks (e.g., multiple choice); extending it to open-ended generation typically requires an additional aggregation step-prompting the model (or a judge) to read the N candidates and synthesize a single answer.”
From From Harm to Help: Turning Reasoning In-Context Demos into Assets for Reasoning LMs (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For instance, CoT prompting (Wei et al., 2022;Wang et al., 2022) has been proposed to bolster LLM reasoning capabilities, demonstrating improved performance across various reasoning and natural language processing tasks.”
From Large language models as tool makers (2023) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“just one iteration of MAGICORE on Llama-3-8B already outperforms Best-of-k sampling (Lightman et al., 2023) by 3.2% and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022) by 3.4%”
From MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Self-Consistency (SC; Wang et al., 2022) generates k reasoning chains and marginalizes over the chains to obtain answer clusters”
From MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This baseline is listed under 'S.C.” and shows no improvement over standard prompting.”
From On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as [46]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Improved performance in reasoning tasks can be gained by encouraging language models to first generate internal thoughts or reasoning chains before responding (Wei et al., 2022; Adolphs et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Lanchantin et al., 2023), as well as updating their initial response through self-critique (Press et al., 2022; Madaan et al., 2023).”
From Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For self-consistency, following established literature, we implemented a framework with 10 distinct reasoning paths and set the temperature parameter to 0.723.”
From Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Showing models many of their own T = 1 samples, along with a single sample to evaluate as True/False, can significantly improve their performance (this is somewhat reminiscent of self-consistency prompting [Wang et al., 2022]).”
From Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know (2022) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Improved performance in reasoning tasks can be gained by encouraging language models to first generate internal thoughts or reasoning chains before responding (Wei et al., 2022; Adolphs et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Lanchantin et al., 2023)”
From Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, our results reveal that its efficacy is no better than self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022) when considering an equivalent number of responses, highlighting the limitations of such an approach.”
From Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet (2023) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent studies have shown that increasing inference-time compute can improve performance in reasoning, mathematics, and code generation via meta-generation strategies (Welleck et al., 2024) such as parallel sampling (Wang et al., 2022;Aggarwal et al., 2023;Sun et al., 2024), tree search (Yao et al., 2024;Wu et al., 2024a), and refinement (Welleck et al., 2023;Madaan et al., 2023;Snell et al., 2024”
From AlphaVerus: Bootstrapping Formally Verified Code Generation through Self-Improving Translation and Treefinement (2024) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, to improve the performance, we equip DAIL-SQL with self-consistency [53], which achieves a performance of 86 . 6% execution accuracy.”
From Text-to-SQL Empowered by Large Language Models: A Benchmark Evaluation (2024) · cites this paper as [53]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 16×
“…have found that even when the desired answer is fixed, introducing diversity in the reasoning processes can be highly beneficial; therefore we leverage sampling, as commonly used for open-ended text generation (Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Thoppilan et al., 2022), to achieve this goal.”
BackgroundInfluentialChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
Self-citationIndividual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
Kudo, T., & Richardson, J. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-2012 · Cited by 4,454
Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 · Cited by 4,263 · cited 32×
“In an effort to address this shortcoming, Wei et al. (2022) have proposed chain-of-thought prompting , where a language model is prompted to generate a series of short sentences that mimic the reasoning process a person might employ in solving a task.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationA learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines
Ackley, D. H., Hinton, G. E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1985) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0901_7 · Cited by 3,402
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
Self-citationLarge language models are zero-shot reasoners
Kojima, T., Gu, S. (., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1613 · Cited by 2,013 · cited 3×
“Prompt with correct chain-of-thought 17.1 Prompt with imperfect chain-of-thought 14.9 + Self-consistency (40 paths) 23.4 Prompt with equations 5.0 + Self-consistency (40 paths) 6.5 PaLM-540B Zero-shot CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) 43.0 + Self-consistency (40 paths) 69.2 Table 8: Self-consistency works under imperfect prom…”
ResultInfluentialHotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1259 · Cited by 1,804 · cited 3×
“Here we perform a study using self-consistency to see if it can help fill in the gap, over a set of common NLP tasks, including (1) Closed-Book Question Answering: BoolQ (Clark et al., 2019), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), and (2) Natural Language Inference: e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018), ANLI (Nie et al., 2020) and RTE…”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Roy Bar-Haim, Ido Dagan, Bill Dolan, Lisa Ferro, Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, and Idan Szpektor. The second pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the second PASCAL challenges workshop on recognising textual entailment , 2006.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,205
VRIQ: Benchmarking and Diagnosing the Visual-Reasoning IQ of Vision-Language ModelsPreprint
Khezresmaeilzadeh, T., Zhong, J., & Psounis, K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.05382 · Cited by 4
“Structured inference methods such as chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023b), and tree-of-thoughts (Yao et al., 2023) have made reasoning a central capability of modern language models.”
Indications of Belief-Guided Agency and Meta-Cognitive Monitoring in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Yalon, N. S., Goldstein, A., Mudrik, L., & Geva, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02467 · Cited by 5
“Notably, BD can be viewed as an internal analogue to self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023).”
Capabilities and Fundamental Limits of Latent Chain-of-Thought
Zou, J., Xiong, Y., & Liu, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01148 · Cited by 3
Predictive Scheduling for Efficient Inference-Time Reasoning in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Brown, K., Muppidi, A., & Shahout, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01237 · Cited by 4
TRACE: Unlocking the Potential of LLMs in Time Series Forecasting for Distributed Energy Resources
Chen, Y., & Xie, H. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3572853 · Cited by 4
“Specifi-cally, “self-consistency [34]” involves making multiple predictions with the same LLM and taking the mode as the final result; “multiagent debate [35]” (MaD) directly copies other LLMs’ outputs to the current model, which then output final prediction; Bagging follows the ensemble learning…”
Reasoning-Based Personalized Generation for Users with Sparse Data
Ni, B., Kveton, B., Basu, S., Mukherjee, S., Wang, L.-Y., Dernoncourt, F., Kim, S., Yoon, S., Wang, Z.-C., Zhang, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21219 · Cited by 3
Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Cryptanalysis of Popular Ciphers
Akilesh, S., Sekar, R., Abinaya, R., Krishnan, P. T., & Columbus, C. (2026) · 2026 IEEE International Students' Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Science (SCEECS) · doi:10.1109/sceecs68810.2026.11430083 · Cited by 3
“They can accomplish math problems, puzzles and logic questions without prior special training[10], [11], [12].”
MonoScale: Scaling Multi-Agent System with Monotonic ImprovementPreprint
Shao, S., Liu, Y., Lu, B., & Zhang, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.23219 · Cited by 5
“…to decompose tasks (Hong et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2023), dispatch subtasks to specialized agents (Qian et al., 2024; Hu et al., 2025) (e.g., retrieval, tool use, code execution), and aggregate re-sults (Wang et al., 2023; 2024), enabling tool-augmented and long-horizon workflows.”
Localizing and Correcting Errors for LLM-based Planners
Kumar, A., & Cohen, W. W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.00276 · Cited by 3
Karakas, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.00380 · Cited by 3
“1, a strong general-purpose Turkish model—we quantify how probability assignments and categorical preferences align with patterns re-ported in psycholinguistic experiments on human speakers.”
Meir, S., Keidar, T. D., Levi, N., Reuveni, S., & Hirshberg, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21522 · Cited by 3
“The topic of verification remains an open problem, and it would be of interest to study ReD under different verification methods such as Best-of-N (Wang et al., 2023), majority vote, and reward models (Christiano et al., 2023).”
Task-Awareness Improves LLM Generations and Uncertainty
Tomov, T., Fuchsgruber, D., & Günnemann, S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21500 · Cited by 3
“Across all settings, Bayes-optimal latent responses consistently outperform other decoding schemes, such as beam search or self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023).”
BayesFlow: A Probability Inference Framework for Meta-Agent Assisted Workflow GenerationPreprint
Yuan, B., Zhou, Y., Xu, Z., Ramnath, K., Feng, A., & Srinivasan, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22305 · Cited by 1
“Three are prompt-based methods: (i) zero-shot prompts (IO), (ii) zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022a), and (iii) CoT with self-consistency (CoT-SC) (Wang et al., 2022a), where each question is answered three times.”
Learning from Self-Debate: Preparing Reasoning Models for Multi-Agent DebatePreprint
Liu, C., Chen, Y., Chen, R., Xiong, T., Zheng, T., & Huang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22297 · Cited by 5
Gilda, S., & Gilda, S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21116 · Cited by 3
A Balanced Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Commonsense Abductive LogicPreprint
Cotnareanu, J., Chételat, D., Zhang, Y., & Coates, M. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18595 · Cited by 3
“) We attempt to solve the problem both with a logic solver, and with self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023).”
InfluentialCode over Words: Overcoming Semantic Inertia via Code-Grounded Reasoning
Xu, M., Yin, I., Tu, X.-Y., Zhang, C., & Zhu, Y. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18352 · Cited by 3
“Existing mitigation strategies—self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023b), multi-agent debate (Du et al., 2023)—operate within natural language, yet we argue this medium itself introduces ambiguity: soft attention mechanisms inherently struggle to enforce strict inhibition of semantic associations.”
Meta-Judging with Large Language Models: Concepts, Methods, and ChallengesPreprint
Silva, H., Mendes, M., & Oliveira, H. G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17312 · Cited by 3
“Training LLM judges remains challenging: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) often lacks exposure to ambiguous or incorrect answers, limiting generalization, while methods like Self-Consistency and Best-of-N only partially address this [Wang et al. , 2022].”
CoT-Seg: Rethinking Segmentation with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Self-CorrectionPreprint
Kao, S.-H., Huang, C. H., Liu, H., Tai, Y., & Tang, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17420 · Cited by 4
Multi-Agent Constraint Factorization Reveals Latent Invariant Solution StructurePreprint
Scofield, C. L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15077 · Cited by 2
“While not always framed as multi-agent, self-consistency is a closely related inference mechanism in which multiple chains of thought are sampled and aggregated to select a consistent answer [Wang et al., 2023].”
Beyond Factual Accuracy: Evaluating Global Reasoning Integrity in RAG Systems with LogicScore
Yan, Z.-C., Zhao, Y., Wang, J.-P., Chen, J.-Y., Li, X.-L., Li, R., & Pan, J. Z. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15050 · Cited by 3
Jafari, A. A., Ozcinar, C., & Anbarjafari, G. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.13383 · Cited by 4
“Subsequent work on self-consistency [26,27] and least-to-most prompting [28] further enhanced reasoning capabilities.”
Do Clinical Question Answering Systems Really Need Specialised Medical Fine Tuning?
Ray, S., Kashyap, G., Tripathi, S., Joshi, N., Govindarajan, V., Ali, R., Gao, J., & Naseem, U. (2026) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.12812 · Cited by 3
“These mechanisms have shown promise in guiding factuality (Youssef et al., 2025; Nadeem et al., 2025), reasoning depth (Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2025a), and safety alignment in general-purpose LLMs while avoiding retraining costs (Li et al., 2025; Maskey et al., 2025; Ren et al., 2025).”
Aletheia: What Makes RLVR For Code Verifiers Tick?
Venkatkrishna, V., Paul, I., & Gurevych, I. (2026) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.12186 · Cited by 3
GeoSteer: Faithful Chain-of-Thought Steering via Latent Manifold GradientsPreprint
Kazama, K., Shirafuji, D., & Saito, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10229 · Cited by 5
“Techniques for generating explicit intermediate reasoning steps enable LLMs to achieve higher accuracy in downstream tasks, i.e., Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting (Wei et al. 2022), Self-Consistency decoding (Wang et al. 2022), and Tree-of-Thought (Yao et al. 2023).”
Liang, S.-C., Wang, Z.-L., Chu, J., Xia, P.-F., Zang, H., & Zhou, D.-Y. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08343 · Cited by 3
“…similar behavior through techniques such as multi-sample decoding (Leviathan et al., 2023; Gui et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2024), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025c), preference modeling (Rafailov et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2025; Ye et al., 2025b), and…”
Self-citationBenchOverflow: Measuring Overflow in Large Language Models via Plain-Text PromptsPreprint
Feiglin, E., Hutnik, N., & Lapid, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08490 · Cited by 2
Yes FLoReNce, I Will Do Better Next Time! Agentic Feedback Reasoning for Humorous Meme Detection
Liu, O., Ng, P. C., Soh, D., & Plataniotis, K. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07232 · Cited by 3
“Frameworks such as ChatEval (Chan et al. 2023), De-bate (Liang et al. 2024; Nguyen, Childress, and Yin 2025), and CoT-SelfConsistency (Wang et al. 2022) simulates interactive and consensus-driven reasoning, while stance and meme-understanding frameworks like COLA (Lan et al. 2024), LoReHM (Huang et al. 2024), and MiND…”
JudgeFlow: Agentic Workflow Optimization via Block JudgePreprint
Ma, Z., Zhao, Z., Hua, C., Berto, F., & Park, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07477 · Cited by 3
“Baselines We compare our J UDGE F LOW with a series of baselines, including (1) Single-agent System: Standard prompting (IO), Chain-of-Thought prompting (CoT) (Wei et al., 2023), and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023b); (2) Hand-crafted Multi-agent System: MultiPersona (Wang et al., 2024c), SELF-REFINE (Madaan et al…”
Mehta, D. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.06423 · Cited by 3
3D CoCa v2: Contrastive Learners with Test-Time Search for Generalizable Spatial Intelligence
Tang, H., Huang, T., & Zhang, Z.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.06496 · Cited by 3
“A common approach is to generate multiple candidates and select the best output using an auxiliary scoring signal, including self-consistency style aggregation [43] and related sampling-and-selection schemes [19].”
Towards human-centric intelligent treatment planning for radiation therapy
Jafar, A., & Jia, X. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02339-5 · Cited by 4
Accurate Table Question Answering with Accessible LLMs
Jiang, Y., Wei, F., Bao, E., Li, Y., Ding, B., Yang, Y., & Xiao, X. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde65706.2026.00020 · Cited by 2
“In the literature, several techniques (detailed below) are commonly applied to enhance LLMs’ ability to understand tabular data in previous work [2], [8], [14], which are absent in the proposed solution Orchestra.”
When Do Tools and Planning Help Large Language Models Think? A Cost- and Latency-Aware Benchmark
Ghoshal, S., & Al-Bustami, A. (2026) · SoutheastCon · doi:10.1109/southeastcon63549.2026.11475987 · Cited by 3
“However, the quality of a single generated reasoning trace can be unstable; self-consistency decoding improves robustness by sampling diverse reasoning paths and selecting the most consistent final answer [4].”
Distortion Instead of Hallucination: The Effect of Reasoning Under Strict Constraints
Niimi, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.01490 · Cited by 3
“Self-consistency [16] samples multiple reasoning paths and aggregates results through majority voting, reducing variance in outputs.”
Semi-supervised learning for AVO inversion with bidirectional spatial feature constraints
Liu, Y.-T., Li, Y., Peng, J., Xie, J.-Y., & Chen, X.-Q. (2026) · Petroleum Science · doi:10.1016/j.petsci.2026.01.005 · Cited by 3
Localized Calibrated Uncertainty in Code Language Models
Gros, D., & Devanbu, P. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.24560 · Cited by 3
“Intuitively, this sample space represents uncertainty over the set of possible correct responses to prompt 𝑥 ; greater self-consistency within the 𝑣 𝑖 empirically indicates higher correctness rates [62].”
Han, J., Gao, Z.-Q., Gao, S.-H., Liu, J., Chen, H., Zhang, Z.-X., & Schuller, B. W. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20938 · Cited by 3
“For instance, Self-Consistency [33] improves upon CoT by generating multiple diverse reasoning paths and selecting the final answer via a majority vote.”
HARMON-E: Hierarchical Agentic Reasoning for Multimodal Oncology Notes to Extract Structured DataPreprint
Gupta, S. K., Pramanik, A., Thomas, J. J., Schwind, R. M., Wiener, L., Raju, A., Kornbluth, J., Wang, Y., Su, Z., & Singh, H. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.19864 · Cited by 4
“Techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting [46] and self-consistency decoding [47] further enhance multi-step reasoning capabilities.”
Tomar, S., Deshwal, A., Villalovoz, E., Fazzini, M., Cai, H., & Doppa, J. R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.15076 · Cited by 4
PIAST: Rapid Prompting with In-context Augmentation for Scarce Training data
Batorski, P., & Swoboda, P. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11013 · Cited by 3
“…2022 The Shapley value of example i is Remark 1 Although in-context learning can be sensitive to the order of examples, our Shapley estimator is order-agnostic: it treats coalitions as sets and evaluates each subset using the current fixed example order used by the optimizer and at inference time.”
Visual Species Recognition with Large Multimodal Models as Post-Hoc Correctors
Liu, T., Basu, A., Caverlee, J., & Shu, K. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.15748 · Cited by 3
“More recently, researchers have sought to enhance visual recognition by exploiting the reasoning capabilities of LMMs [17], [69], [84], [85] through techniques such as Chain-of-Thought prompting [17], [86], [87], self-verification [85], and in-context learning [40], [41], [87], [88], [89].”
Attention as Binding: A Vector-Symbolic Perspective on Transformer Reasoning
Dhayalkar, S. R. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14709 · Cited by 3
“Transformer/attention mechanisms and reasoning techniques such as chain-of-thought and tool-augmented models (Vaswani et al. 2017; Wei et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2023; Mialon et al. 2023).”
InfluentialMetric-Fair Prompting: Treating Similar Samples SimilarlyPreprint
Wang, J., Shen, J., Niu, X., Zhang, T., & Weiss, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07608
“Our approach complements prior prompt-engineering methods that improve reasoning via intermediate structure, such as chain-of-thought [22], self-consistency [21], and search-based prompting (e.g., Tree-of-Thoughts [24] and ReAct [25]).”
Mahmud, A., Rawajfih, Y., & Arnold, R. (2025) · 2025 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference Workshops (ACSAC Workshops) · doi:10.1109/acsacw69556.2025.00074 · Cited by 3
“Ensemble techniques in machine learning have long provided improved reliability and uncertainty estimation by combining diverse predictors [19].”
Effective and Efficient Threat Hunting with Small Language Models
Muzammil, S., Reddy, R., Kamalakrishnan, V., Ahmadi, H., & Hassan, W. U. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.06660 · Cited by 3
“Complementary techniques such as schema/value retrieval, few-shot selection, voting over sampled reasoning paths [32], and iterative self-feedback [20] improve correctness without enlarging model footprint.”
MARINE: Theoretical Optimization and Design for Multi-Agent Recursive IN-context EnhancementPreprint
Zhang, H., Lu, J., Du, Y., Gao, Y., Huang, L., Wang, B., Tan, F., & Zou, P. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07898 · Cited by 3
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting exposes intermediate steps and improves performance on arithmetic and symbolic tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022).”
Li, Q., Cheng, M., Liu, Z., Wang, D., Zeng, Y., & Liu, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.03360 · Cited by 4
“For complex tasks, step-by-step prompting has become widely used (Besta et al. 2024b; Wang et al. 2023).”
Latent Debate: A Surrogate Framework for Interpreting LLM Thinking towards Binary DecisionsPreprint
Chen, L., Yin, X., & Toni, F. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01909 · Cited by 5
Farooq, A., Anuragi, D., Li, Z., Ziat, M., Cooperstock, J. R., & Raisamo, R. (2025) · Human-Intelligent Systems Integration · doi:10.1007/s42454-025-00085-9 · Cited by 2
“…examples (Kojima et al. 2023), and Self-Consistency, which involves sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the majority answer (Wang et al. 2023) More advanced methods explore non-linear reasoning paths: 1) Tree of Thought (ToT) models exploring different reasoning branches…”
IndiMathBench: Autoformalizing Mathematical Reasoning Problems with a Human Touch
Biyani, P., Kirtania, S., Bajpai, Y., Gulwani, S., & Tiwari, A. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00997 · Cited by 3
“While this multi-model setup aids evaluation (Section 5.1), the same process can be used for multiple generations of a single model, analogous to self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023).”
InfluentialRL-Struct: A Lightweight Reinforcement Learning Framework for Reliable Structured Output in LLMsPreprint
Hu, R., & Wu, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00319 · Cited by 5
ML-Tool-Bench: Tool-Augmented Planning for ML TasksPreprint
Chittepu, Y., Addanki, R., Mai, T., Rao, A. B., & Kveton, B. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00672 · Cited by 3
“The value of a state is taken to be a weighted average of the evaluator LLM’s score and a self-consistency score (Wang et al., 2022), which upweights frequent candidates in the expansion stage.”
Tuning LLM-Based Advisors for the Common Good: The Case for Direct Preference Optimization
Mauri, L., Sargsyan, G., & Damiani, E. (2025) · International Conference on Foundation and Large Language Models (FLLM) · doi:10.1109/fllm67465.2025.11391029 · Cited by 2
“Of course, it is not a panacea: distribution shifts, where the tuned model’s behavior diverges from its original training [4], can lead to hallucinations [5].”
Reading Between the Lines: Abstaining from VLM-Generated OCR Errors via Latent Representation ProbesPreprint
Yao, J., Kulshrestha, A., Rauschmayr, N., Roberts, R., Zhu, B., Tsvetkov, Y., & Tombari, F. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19806 · Cited by 5
“(2) Response-level methods aggregate information across multiple model generations, including self-consistency [37, 50], semantic entropy [11], and self-evaluation frameworks [6].”
LAST: LeArning to Think in Space and Time for Generalist Vision-Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, S., Zhang, D., Bai, T., Shao, S., Luo, J., & Wei, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19261 · Cited by 3
“CoT [80, 84].”
Self-citationFireScope: Wildfire Risk Raster Prediction with a Chain-of-Thought OraclePreprint
Markov, M., Ailuro, S. M., Gool, L. V., Konrad Schindler, B., & Paudel, D. P. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17171 · Cited by 4
“In language models, CoT prompting encourages step-by-step reasoning that enhances accuracy on complex tasks [27, 55, 57].”
Efficiency Will Not Lead to Sustainable Reasoning AIPreprint
Wiesner, P., O'Neill, D. W., Larosa, F., & Kao, O. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15259 · Cited by 2
“Unlike earlier models, reasoning AI is less constrained by the availability of training data and can continue to improve primarily through additional computation, both during inference (via multi-step reasoning [9, 44, 45, 48]) and training (usually via reinforcement learning [12, 17, 29, 30]).”
SVBRD-LLM: Self-Verifying Behavioral Rule Discovery for Autonomous Vehicle Identification
Li, X.-Y., Wang, T.-Y., Jiao, J.-F., Claudel, C. G., & Guo, Z.-M. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.14977 · Cited by 3
“On the other hand, research on LLM reasoning reliability shows that without external feedback, models often cannot reliably fix their own reasoning errors, and performance gains typically rely on explicit verification mechanisms [27]–[30].”
GPS: General Per-Sample Prompter
Batorski, P., & Swoboda, P. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21714 · Cited by 3
Jain, A., Krishnamurthy, V., & Zhang, Y.-M. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.14098 · Cited by 3
“…(Li et al., 2023), Chain-of-Agents for sequential long-context processing (Zhang et al., 2024b), and Tree-of-Thoughts for parallel search over reasoning paths (Yao et al., 2023) demonstrate accuracy gains on complex tasks, while self-consistency ensembles reduce failure modes (Wang et al., 2023).”
Shen, S., Liu, K., Xie, J.-Q., Gao, S., Shen, C.-H., Liu, G., Crispin-Ortuzar, M., & Gao, S.-Q. (2025) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.12691 · Cited by 3
“Concretely, chain-of-thought prompting [41] and self-consistency [39] enhance logical fidelity, while least-to-most prompting [48] enables the decomposition of intricate tasks.”
Generating Frequently Asked Questions from Technical Support Tickets using Large Language Models
Joslin, C., Burns, D., Ashish, F., & Sarbijan, E. J. (2025) · International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC) · doi:10.1145/3731599.3767429 · Cited by 3
“It draws loose inspiration from the self-consistency method developed by Wang et al. [41], which generates multiple completions from the same prompt and selects the most consistent answer via majority vote.”
Learning to Refine: An Agentic RL Approach for Iterative SPARQL Query Construction
Vossebeld, F., & Wang, S. (2025) · University of Twente Research Information · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11770 · Cited by 2
“Some approaches use inference-time sampling or search [26, 27]; others explicitly train models to optimize reasoning under compute constraints [28, 29].”
Seer Self-Consistency: Advance Budget Estimation for Adaptive Test-Time Scaling
Ji, S.-Y., Wang, Y., Liu, Y.-J., Zhu, Q.-F., & Che, W.-X. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09345 · Cited by 3
“• Self-Consistency (SC) (Wang et al., 2022) generates N independent reasoning paths and determines the final answer by majority voting on the predicted solutions.”
InfluentialShen, Y.-H., Qian, J., Zhang, S., Chen, Z., Lu, T., & Zhou, J. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09195 · Cited by 3
“Chain-of-thought reasoning trains models to generate explicit intermediate steps rather than only final answers and improves performance on complex language tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022).”
Hierarchical Memorization in Large Language Models: Evidence from Citation GenerationPreprint
Niimi, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.08877 · Cited by 5
“Recent studies suggest that reasoning capabilities in LLMs, such as Chain-of-Thoughts (CoT) [66] and self-consistency [67], may improve task accuracy and reduce hallucinations [68, 69, 70, 71].”
Consensus Sampling for Safer Generative AI
Kalai, A., Kalai, Y., & Zamir, O. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09493 · Cited by 3
“DExperts [Liu et al., 2021] uses a combination-of-experts at decoding time to reduce toxic content, while self-consistency methods [Wang et al., 2022] sample multiple reasoning paths and select the most consistent answer to reduce logical errors.”
Knowledge-Augmented Long-CoT Generation for Complex Biomolecular Reasoning
Lyu, T., Zhuang, X., Ding, K.-Y., Cao, X., Liang, L., Zhao, W., Zhang, Q., & Chen, H.-J. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.08024 · Cited by 3
“Fluvastatin targets proteins: HMGCR, HDAC2... 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022; Min et al., 2024) prompting techniques and reinforcement learning strategies, which enable stepwise and logically coherent reasoning.”
InfluentialThink Consistently, Reason Efficiently: Energy-Based Calibration for Implicit Chain-of-Thought
Chen, Z.-K., Cui, S., Ye, D.-H., Zhang, Y., Bian, Y.-T., & Zhu, T. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07124 · Cited by 3
“Wei et al. (2022) first demonstrated that prompting models to generate intermediate reasoning steps can substantially improve performance in arithmetic and commonsense reasoning tasks, revealing the emergence of step-by-step reasoning abilities as the model scale increases.”
InfluentialXiong, X., Wong, R. C.-W., & Song, Y. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3746252.3761375 · Cited by 1
“Following the setting of existing studies [38], the temperature 𝑡 is set to 0.7.”
InfluentialRevealing AI Reasoning Increases Trust but Crowds Out Unique Human Knowledge
Chen, Z., Gao, R., & Liang, Y. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.04050 · Cited by 3
PSD2Code: Automated Front-End Code Generation from Design Files via Multimodal Large Language Models
Chen, Y., & Chen, L. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.04012 · Cited by 3
GEMMA-SQL: A Novel Text-to-SQL Model Based on Large Language Models
Pandey, H. M., Gupta, A., Sarkar, S., Tomer, M., Schneider, J., & Gong, Y. (2025) · Applied Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/08839514.2025.2587371 · Cited by 3
“The model’s contributions are notable in advancing few-shot Text-to-SQL capabilities [47], particularly with limited labeled data, through novel execution-based consistency decoding [48].”
Lee, J., Yao, L., Jeong, H.-H., & Liu, Z. (2025) · PubMed Central · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02263 · Cited by 2
Reasoning Planning for Language Models
Nguyen, B., Nguyen, H. T., She, R.-F., Fu, X., & Nguyen, V. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.00521 · Cited by 3
“To identify and choose the correct solution within the distribution, Self-Consistency (SC) samples multiple outputs from the LLM and selects the final response by majority voting [Wang et al., 2022].”
ThoughtProbe: Classifier-Guided LLM Thought Space Exploration via Probing Representations
Wang, Z., & Xu, C. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.307 · Cited by 1
“( 6) Self-consistency (SC) (Wang et al., 2022): Employs a majority voting mechanism across multiple generated responses to identify the most consistent answer.”
Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items?
Hwang, S., Kim, H., & Lee, G. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25064 · Cited by 3
“In the CoT setting, we additionally apply self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2022), generating 10 samples with top-k =20, top-p =0.8, and temperature=0.7 and using priority answer.”
InfluentialCAVE: Detecting and Explaining Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environments
Bhagwatkar, R., Montariol, S., Romanou, A., Borges, B., Rish, I., & Bosselut, A. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1379 · Cited by 3
“…2025); (5) CoT + Self-consistency generates three model outputs per image (using temperature=0.5) and applies consensus-based aggregation using the same model, considering only anomalies detected in at least two out of three generations, thereby reducing spurious detections (Wang et al., 2022).”
InfluentialCompiler.next: A Search-Based Compiler to Power the AI-Native Future of Software Engineering
Côgo, F., Oliva, G., & Hassan, A. E. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3802581 · Cited by 3
“The evaluator-FM, which may differ from the release-FM, produces this self-reflection feedback to leverage superior emergent abilities in generating actionable guidance.”
Chain-of-Thought Guided Semantic Debiasing for Low-Shot Vision-Language Tasks
Chen, B., He, K., Zheng, Z., Jing, M., & Zuo, L. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3746027.3755512
“Various CoT variants, such as self-consistency [41] and few-shot CoT [42], have been proposed to improve model performance.”
You Don't Need Prompt Engineering Anymore: The Prompting InversionPreprint
Khan, I. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22251 · Cited by 4
“This autonomy can be a liability, as models can be “distracted” by irrelevant information, fall into plausible “common sense” traps, or misinterpret semantic nuance, leading to incorrect solutions [15].”
Neural Diversity Regularizes Hallucinations in Language ModelsPreprint
Chakrabarti, K., & Balachundhar, N. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20690 · Cited by 1
“Second-moment approaches exist but lack theoretical grounding: self-consistency reduces hallucinations through diverse sampling (Wang et al., 2022) without formal tail-probability guarantees, while deep ensembles provide uncertainty estimates (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017) but not…”
Language Ranker: A Lightweight Ranking framework for LLM DecodingPreprint
Zhang, C.-H., Du, T., Zhang, J.-Z., Xiao, M.-Q., Wang, Y.-F., Wang, Y.-S., & Lin, Z. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.21883 · Cited by 3
“Current decoding strategies, including top-k sampling [6, 7], self-consistency [8], and contrastive decoding [9], are largely rule-based and task-specific, limiting their ability to fully exploit the potential of LLMs’ powerful output distributions.”
Mittal, A., Tadi, G., & Madduri, S. (2025) · IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) · doi:10.1109/uemcon67449.2025.11267527 · Cited by 3
“Foundational Detection Methods: Self-consistency approaches sample diverse reasoning paths, achieving +17.9% GSM8K improvement with 5x computational overhead [12].”
InfluentialThought Space Explorer: Navigating and Expanding Thought Space for Large Language Model Reasoning
Zhang, J., & Liu, K. (2024) · 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825638 · Cited by 2
Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models
Sui, Y., Chuang, Y.-N., Wang, G., Zhang, J., Zhang, T., Yuan, J., Liu, H., Wen, A., Zhong, S., Zou, N., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 517
“Several notable CoT variants have been developed: Self-Consistency CoT [90] replaces the standard greedy decoding approach by sampling diverse reasoning paths and selecting the most consistent answer through marginalization and aggregation.”
Gödel Agent: A Self-Referential Agent Framework for Recursive Self-Improvement
Yin, X., Wang, X., Pan, L., Lin, L., Wan, X., & Wang, W. Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.04444 · Cited by 2
“In addition, to gain Hand-Designed Agent Systems Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022) 64.2 ± 0.9 28.0 ± 3.1 65.4 ± 3.3 29.2 ± 3.1 COT-SC (Wang et al., 2023b) 64.4 ± 0.8 28.2 ± 3.1 65.9 ± 3.2 30.5 ± 3.2 Self-Refine (Madaan et al., 2024) 59.2 ± 0.9 27.5 ± 3.1 63.5 ± 3.4 31.6 ± 3.2 LLM Debate (Du et…”
InfluentialSelf-citationThink before you speak: Training Language Models With Pause Tokens
Goyal, S., Ji, Z., Rawat, A. S., Menon, A. K., Kumar, S., & Nagarajan, V. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02226 · Cited by 2
“CoT prompting has been shown to significantly improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models (Wei et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2021; Lanchantin et al., 2023; Suzgun et al., 2023; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023b; Yao et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Pandit, S., Xu, J., Hong, J., Wang, Z., Chen, T., Xu, K., & Ding, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14302 · Cited by 31
R-U-SURE? Uncertainty-Aware Code Suggestions By Maximizing Utility Across Random User Intents
Johnson, D. D., Tarlow, D., & Walder, C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.00732 · Cited by 3
Are Retrials All You Need? Enhancing Large Language Model Reasoning Without Verbalized Feedback
Potamitis, N., & Arora, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12951 · Cited by 2
Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity
Zhu, X., Zhang, C., Chi, Y., Stafford, T., Collier, N., & Vlachos, A. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1694 · Cited by 28
Diagnosing and Mitigating Sycophancy and Skepticism in LLM Causal Judgment
Chang, E. Y. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.427 · Cited by 2
Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performance
Ruan, Y., Maddison, C. J., & Hashimoto, T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.10938 · Cited by 3
AdaEvolve: Adaptive LLM Driven Zeroth-Order Optimization
Cemri, M., Agrawal, S., Gupta, A., Liu, S., Cheng, A., Mang, Q., Naren, A., Erdogan, L. E., Sen, K., Zaharia, M., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.20133 · Cited by 2
“Techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022) and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022) exploit this by sampling diverse reasoning paths, while more structured approaches like Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) (Zhang et al., 2024; Chopra & Shah, 2025) (Lee et al., 2025).”
Solving Without Stopping: On-Policy Distillation at Small Scale
Li, H.-Y., Zhu, Y.-M., Li, X., Wu, C., Mammar, S., & Bouvry, P. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.37326 · Cited by 2
“A vote over the n committed answers (Wang et al., 2023) tells whether a student’s samples agree on the right answer.”
When Can Agents Forget Their Reasoning? ICLR for Long-Horizon Agent Context CompressionPreprint
Wang, M., Luo, F., Wang, B., Yao, G., Guo, Y., Ning, C., Chen, H., Ma, Y., & Han, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.29875 · Cited by 2
“Extended Chain of Thought reasoning has become a central mechanism for mathematical reasoning, code generation, and complex decision making, but longer reasoning traces also increase token usage, latency, and inference cost 7,8,24,25 .”
CausalWM: Causal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Embodied World ModelPreprint
Xu, Z., Liang, S., Han, R., Xi, Z., Rao, M., Zhou, K., Zhang, Z., Yan, Y., Wei, Y., Huang, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.23184 · Cited by 3
“This simple change gives a large boost on tasks like arithmetic and multi-step question answering, and later work showed the steps can be produced without hand-written examples [44] and made more reliable by sampling several chains and taking the majority answer [77].”
Lin, H., Woodruff, D. P., Deng, Y., Mao, J., Zuo, S., & Mirrokni, V. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.15983 · Cited by 4
“Sampling diverse reasoning paths and aggregating their answers [55], searching over intermediate states [60], revising against model-generated feedback [44], and organizing multi-agent debate [18] provide complementary ways to use additional inference.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2203.11171
- OpenAlex
- W4221161695
- Cited by
- 829
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 231 · 2024: 262 · 2023: 253 · 2022: 11
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- self-consistency, chain-of-thought prompting, large language models, decoding strategies, arithmetic reasoning, commonsense reasoning, GSM8K, Aqua, StrategyQA, ARC-Challenge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review