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 1,001–1,100 of 1,205
HypoEvolve: Genetic Algorithms Enable Multi-Agent LLMs to Discover Scientific HypothesesPreprint
Liu, J., Hu, M., Chen, J., Kong, J., Jagannatha, P., Gao, Y., Pratt, D., Lee, H.-Y., Hu, Z., Ideker, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.15938 · Cited by 2
“(2) Self-consistency tests agreement across 40 independent samples [43].”
OmniHarness: Harnessing Generalizable Visual Generation via Symbolic Policy LearningPreprint
Xu, X., Liu, J., Qiao, Z., Lu, J., Zhang, X., Gu, Y., Ning, F., & Shi, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.16057 · Cited by 2
Evaluating Deep-Search Agents under Hierarchical Web Evidence PoisoningPreprint
Bi, Z., Wang, Q., Jiang, J., Ding, J., Xiong, W., Meng, C., Gao, X., Lin, K., Jiang, C., Chen, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.06027 · Cited by 3
Inference-Time Graph Engineering for Multi-Agent LLM WorkflowsPreprint
Tieu, K., Fu, D., Xia, Y., Li, H., Yan, H., & He, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.05774 · Cited by 2
“Single-agent baselines include CoT (Wei et al., 2022), ComplexCoT Fu et al. (2022), Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023), and PHP (Zheng et al., 2023).”
Cheap Verifiers, Large Blind Spots: Measuring the Reliability Cost of Cost-Saving Cascades
Rajput, D., Chauhan, N., & Kosaraju, S. R. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.01345 · Cited by 2
“Recent cascade work makes the loop explicit and online, storing the strong model’s deferral-time strategies for reuse [4, 5], the latter deferring by self-consistency [15].”
trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent TrajectoriesPreprint
Mohammadi, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.00038 · Cited by 3
“…macro-F1 over faulty trajectories and the share of all faults detected and correctly typed; calibration is ten-bin ECE [Pakdaman Naeini et al., 2015] against the binary verdict, coarse for the rule engine’s two constants and the ensemble’s two-valued vote share; cost is seconds per…”
Candidate supply and answer selection shape the value of LLM judging in multi-agent systemsPreprint
Ji, J.-H., Li, S., Cheng, J., She, Z., Yu, J.-T., & Yuan, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.25937 · Cited by 2
“When agents exchange outputs without a quality filter, stochastic variation can give one rationale an early advantage, a pattern analogous to memetic drift 28 .”
Prefix Sliding for efficient test-time scalingPreprint
Muennighoff, N., Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Shi, W., Hui, B., Yang, J., Jiang, D., Senghaas, M., Obeid, F., Hagemann, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.26070 · Cited by 2
Self-citationCredal Large Language Models for Semantic Commitment under Uncertainty
Manchingal, S. K., Nikolenko, S., & Cuzzolin, F. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.23244 · Cited by 2
“…can express the same answer; semantic entropy instead clusters sampled generations by meaning and scores cluster diversity Kuhn et al. [2023], Farquhar et al. [2024], and self-consistency decoding marginalises over sampled reasoning paths to pick the most agreed-upon answer [Wang et al., 2023].”
NoTB: Oracle-Free Triage of LLM-Generated RTL via Cross-Model Formal Consensus
Alvanaki, E. L., Yang, J., Seyoum, B. B., & Carloni, L. P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.21962 · Cited by 2
Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-ConsistencyPreprint
Zhang, L., Tang, M., Long, C., Tang, X., & Luo, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.18795 · Cited by 1
“In multi-sample inference with language models, practitioners rely on the heuristic that “more samples and more agreement mean a more reliable answer” [1].”
Co-RL: Unsupervised Reasoning Emerges from Diverse Cohort in Multi-agent RL
Yang, Y., Bian, Y., Tian, Y.-J., Fu, D., Huang, T.-J., Shi, Y.-Y., Xiao, Z., Vasconcelos, N., & Li, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17253 · Cited by 2
Judge, Retrieve, or Abstain: Uncertainty-Guarded LLM Judging with Provable Risk GuaranteesPreprint
Badshah, S., Emami, A., & Sajjad, H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17994 · Cited by 2
“Black-box methods, in contrast, estimate uncertainty by querying the judge repeatedly and measuring how consistent its verdicts are (Wang et al., 2023; 2024).”
wang, Z., Hong, Z., & Bagci, U. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17124 · Cited by 2
“For LLMs that fusion rule is almost always majority voting over sampled chains of thought (self-consistency [1]): draw N candidates, return the answer that appears most often.”
Q-Learning With World ModelsPreprint
Dong, P., Jia, Y., Finn, C., & Sadigh, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.17163 · Cited by 1
Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation
Wu, Z.-L. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.14509 · Cited by 2
“The comparisons a reviewer would reasonably require — self-consistency over one-shot samples [36], unsupervised Dawid–Skene [8], and a one-shot reader instructed to emit citations [12] — are absent, and Table 2 should be read as an internal design comparison rather than as a positioning against…”
More Correct Mass, Worse Answers: Why Power Sampling Can Fail and How to Fix It
Yang, H.-S., Sun, J.-X., & Ma, X.-J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.14420 · Cited by 2
“Self-Consistency (SC), for example, selects the answer receiving the most support across independently sampled trajectories (Wang et al., 2023; Oh and Lee, 2026).”
Beyond the Best Guess: Improving LLM Solution Coverage with Evolution StrategiesPreprint
Hayes, C. F., Meyerson, E., Schweighofer, K., Dailey, R., Hodjat, B., Miikkulainen, R., & Qiu, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12679 · Cited by 1
“TTS began with early breakthroughs like CoT (Wei et al., 2022), and has since diversified into methods including tree-base approaches (Yao et al., 2023; Aygün et al., 2026), iterative feedback loops (Madaan et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 2023), and general agentic harnesses (Ning et al., 2026).”
InfluentialAgent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence
Bhardwaj, V., Singh, G., & Bhardwaj, A. P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12895 · Cited by 2
Numeracy in Large Language Models: Fundamental Limitations and Paths to ImprovementPreprint
Ni, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.13129 · Cited by 2
Open Evaluation Agent: Efficient and Promptable Evaluation of Visual Generative ModelsPreprint
Tian, S., Huang, Z., Zhang, F., Zhu, H., Qiao, Y., & Liu, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.09666 · Cited by 3
“Beyond single-chain reasoning, recent methods explore richer deliberation structures, including Tree of Thoughts [61], Algorithm of Thoughts [62], Graph of Thoughts [63], self-consistency [64], and Reflexion [65].”
Large Language Model-Driven Context-Aware Eco-Feedback Generation and Evaluation
Jung, W., & Babon-Ayeng, P. (2026) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.118038 · Cited by 2
“Specifically, we employed self-consistency with chain-of-thought (SC-CoT) prompt [45].”
CurveShift: Is Agent Progress Scalar? Separating Level from Shape
Xing, H.-W., Wang, P., Meng, B., Alhamoud, K., Li, X., Wang, J.-C., Yu, X., Han, X.-Y., Li, X.-M., Torr, P., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00355 · Cited by 2
“Post-era models spend more inference compute per attempt, and repeated sampling alone is known to buy coverage on hard problems (Chen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2024).”
Open Security Benchmark: Towards Autonomous Enterprise Cyber DefensePreprint
Engelberg, G., Arenzon, M., & Goldberg, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.27288 · Cited by 2
“Each task is run for several independent traces; every trace is scored by every judge; and a metric’s score is the mode of the pooled votes (majority voting over samples in the spirit of self-consistency [54]), ties broken toward the lower grade.”
State-dependent error correlations shape voting thresholds in committees of AI agentsPreprint
Li, H., & Hai, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.23931 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency [12] and sample-and-vote scaling [13] aggregate a single model; debate [6, 10, 37], mixture-of-agents [7], and role-structured frameworks [8, 9] aggregate several.”
Conformal Cascade: Distribution-Free Accuracy Guarantees for Multi-Tier LLM Inference
Dou, Y.-F., Lian, S., & Li, S.-B. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.25018 · Cited by 2
“For tier k , we draw N independent responses from m k at temperature τ > 0 (the self-consistency regime of Wang et al. (2023)), giving extracted answers When the answer set A ( x ) varies per query (TruthfulQA has |A ( x ) | ∈ { 4 , . . . , 10 } ), all quantities below are defined per-query on A (…”
A Frozen 12B Beats Frontier Models on Verified Work: 100% Accuracy, 0 Tokens, Bit-Exact, ForeverPreprint
Schelpe, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.23806 · Cited by 2
“…oracle, rather than an independent, answer-key-free gate that demonstrably rejects subtly-wrong candidates (§2.6); the verification principles that gate does build on are classical — differential and metamorphic testing [11, 12], test-based selection [13, 14], and machine-checked proof [10].”
InfluentialTriShieldRAG: 3 Rings, One Blind Spot in Layered Defenses for Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Mohanty, S. K., Patel, R., Yuvaraj, K., Chaudhary, J., & Singhania, D. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.23838 · Cited by 2
“…and their limits Ring 3’s design draws on an intuition with substantial support: sampling a model repeatedly and taking the majority answer improves reasoning accuracy [102], disagreement between samples signals hallucination [68], and debate between model instances can improve factuality [31].”
Teaching LLMs to Self-Evolve: Cultivating Core Meta-Skills with Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Wu, S., Qian, C., Chen, X., & Ji, H. Q. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21971 · Cited by 2
“Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023c) extends this by sampling diverse reasoning paths and selecting answers via majority voting, while Tree of Thoughts (Yao et al., 2023) generalizes CoT into tree-structured deliberate search with self-evaluation and backtracking.”
Agent Team Work Zone: An Automated, Persistent Workspace for Long-Lived Claude Code Agent TeamsPreprint
Wang, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.22917 · Cited by 1
Byun, H., Lee, D., Jung, M., & Jang, B. (2026) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-026-02440-y · Cited by 3
SLPO: Scaling Latent Reasoning via a Surrogate Policy
You, R.-Y., Liu, Z.-Y., Li, Y.-Q., & Li, W.-J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.19691 · Cited by 2
“Recent reasoning models push this additional test-time computation considerably further, either sequentially, by extending and revising ever longer chains [5]; or in parallel, by searching and exploring among ever more trials at inference [2, 4].”
Can We Break LLMs Out of Self-Loops? Fine-Grained Reasoning Control with Activation SteeringPreprint
Yu, S., Yu, T., Jiang, X., Surana, R., Mundada, G., Kim, S., Yao, L., McAuley, J., & Wu, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.18100 · Cited by 1
“Inference-time methods avoid retraining but intervene at coarse granularity: thought-switching penalties Wang et al. [2023] and underthinking-triggered prompt insertions Zhang et al. [2025] act on the surface token stream.”
Dastidar, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.17044 · Cited by 2
“Prior work has shown both that structured feedback can improve LLM outputs [4, 5, 8, 6] and, pointedly, that models are poor at correcting their own reasoning without external signals [7].”
Training Continuous Chain of Thought Models: A Tale of Two Regimes
Yerram, V., He, H., & Choi, E. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.16972 · Cited by 2
“It improves self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023b), simplifies complex problem solving through decomposition (Zhou et al., 2023), facilitates planning (Wang et al., 2023a), automates demonstration generation (Zhang et al., 2023), and enhances supervised fine-tuning (Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al.,…”
Knowledge-Centric Agents for Workflow Generation in ComfyUI
Li, Z.-D., Sun, L., Ming, R., Zhang, H., Paudel, D., van Gool, L., & Gu, J.-J. (2026) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.15845 · Cited by 2
“Our analysis employed GPT-5 for multi-label classification, recognizing that a single workflow may encompass multiple task types (e.g., a workflow that generates an image and then upscales it would be classified as both text_to_image and upscaling ).”
Yang, C.-H., Jiang, J., Vasudevan, V., Yang, C.-H., Zheng, H., Chen, L., Huerta, E. A., Vishwanath, V., Foster, I. T., & Thakur, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.15388 · Cited by 2
Where Should RL Post-Training Compute Go? Model Size, Search, Learning, and Feedback
Wilhelm, P., & Kao, O. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13389 · Cited by 2
“Test-time reasoning methods such as chain-of-thought prompting, self-consistency, and tree search show that additional inference compute can improve reasoning quality [12, 13, 14].”
Cost-Pragmatic Quality Gating and Selection-Fusion Multi-Model Combiners for BioASQ Phases A+ and B
Galat, D., & Rizoiu, M. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13551 · Cited by 2
Open-KNEAD: Knowledge-grounded Nutrition Estimation via Agentic DecompositionPreprint
Coburn, B., Yue, J., Ma, J., Raghavan, S., Vinod, G., & Zhu, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.12911 · Cited by 2
SymbOmni: Evolving Agentic Omni Models via Symbolic Concept Learning
Liu, J.-X., Li, J., Kuang, T.-Q., Liu, X., Mei, K., Wen, Y.-D., & Liu, W.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.12042 · Cited by 2
Test-Time Scaling for Small VLMs on Multilingual Visual MCQPreprint
Baxevanakis, S., & Yang, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.09438 · Cited by 1
Exploring More to Solve More: Boosting Diversity in Text Diffusion Models via Entropy-Based GuidancePreprint
Zhang, J., Lei, H., Feng, Z., Sun, J., & Farnia, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00024
“Prior work such as Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022) and Tree-of-Thoughts (Yao et al., 2023) shows that generating multiple distinct reasoning paths increases the probability of recovering the correct answer.”
The Harness Effect: How Orchestration Design Sets the Token Economics of Enterprise Agentic AIPreprint
Ali, M. H., Novik, A. V., Boddupally, A., Yavorskyi, A., Nickerson, C., Rica, D., DuGranrut, E., Leung, F., Prince, G., Barnett, G., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.06906 · Cited by 2
From Solvers to Research: Large Language Model-Driven Formal Mathematics at the Research FrontierPreprint
Jiang, E., Liang, X., Zhang, J., Baker, J., Zhang, Z., Wan, Y., Li, Y., Yu, J., Li, Y., Deng, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07779 · Cited by 4
“The verification methods that followed, including self-consistency [241] and iterative refinement [250, 165, 37, 207, 148, 147], presaged the generate-verify loops central to systems like HybridProver [99].”
TREK: Distill to Explore, Reinforce to RefinePreprint
Xu, Y., Zhou, Z., Behdin, K., Marković, J., Sang, H., Li, X., Zhu, W., Du, X., Rahmattalabi, A., He, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.05339 · Cited by 3
“…additional inference-time context such as execution feedback, reflection, a longer reasoning budget, or failure lessons, can discover verified solutions that the unaided student currently misses [Wang et al., 2022a, Zelikman et al., 2022, Yao et al., 2023a, Shinn et al., 2023, Yao et al., 2023b].”
Atomic Task Graph: A Unified Framework for Agentic Planning and ExecutionPreprint
Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Huang, Z. Z., Cui, H., Ji, K., & Wang, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01942 · Cited by 2
“Prompt-based methods steer agents through natural-language interaction patterns, including implicit textual trajectories[6, 7, 18, 24], explicit planning structures[16, 17, 19, 26], and multi-agent coordination[32–37].”
Underspecification does not imply Incoherence: The Risks of Semantic Collapse in Coding Models
Richter, C., & Papadakis, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01953 · Cited by 2
“Self-consistency [26] is an effective candidate selection method that only reports the answer that occurs most often across sampled LLM responses.”
KAVER: Knowledge-augmented verifiable chain-of-thought prompting for dialogue answer generation
Liang, S., Peng, Y., Li, X.-S., Zhang, J., & Zhao, R.-C. (2026) · Expert systems with applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2026.132116 · Cited by 2
AgentDropout: Dynamic Redundancy Elimination for Multi-Agent Collaboration Efficiency
Xiao, Z., Guo, Q., Wang, Y., Wang, B., & Lu, H. (2026) · International Conference on Electronics and Communication, Network and Computer Technology (ECNCT) · doi:10.1109/ecnct70535.2026.11661404 · Cited by 4
“Smit et al. [7] demonstrate that multi-agent debate systems do not reliably outperform simpler prompting strategies such as self-consistency [8] and often exhibit high sensitivity to hyperparameter settings.”
Explainable Hallucination Mitigation in Large Language Models: A Survey
Deng, W., Li, J., Zhang, H., Li, J., Deng, Z., Cheng, D., Feng, Z., & Zeng, H. (2026) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.70110 · Cited by 3
CoMet: Context and Multiplicity Decomposition for Multimodal Uncertainty Estimation
Chun, S., Yang, W., Dharmasiri, A., & Russakovsky, O. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.32012 · Cited by 2
“Sampling-based uncertainty for M/LLM. Sampling-based methods estimate uncertainty by aggregating multiple outputs, e.g. , quantify the output consistency [10] or their semantic meaning [12, 31].”
InfluentialSPARK: Adaptive Parametric Knowledge Participation for Faithful Retrieval-Augmented GenerationPreprint
Li, R., Huang, P., Liu, Z., Yan, Y., Xie, H., Gu, Y., Yu, G., & Sun, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.27786 · Cited by 3
“❸ Fine-tuning methods , including Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) (Wei et al., 2021) and Knowledgeable-R1 (Lin et al., 2026), which train the model to improve its behavior under contextual knowledge conflicts.”
InfluentialEfficient and Trainable Language Model Test-Time Scaling via Local Branch RoutingPreprint
Yin, Y., Jin, M., Pan, J., Yang, C., Xia, Z., Pai, D., Hu, S., Zhang, Z., Zhao, C., Zhao, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.25354 · Cited by 3
“Chain-of-thought prompting encourages models to externalize intermediate reasoning steps [28], self-consistency improves accuracy by sampling multiple reasoning traces [27], and broader studies of test-time scaling show that the value of extra compute depends strongly on how it is allocated [24].”
Self-citationLi, S., Dong, X., Ma, X.-G., Chen, J.-F., Zhao, H.-R., & Zhou, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.28397 · Cited by 2
SPIRAL: Learning to Search and AggregatePreprint
Hamid, J. I., Orney, I. H., Li, M., Shaikh, O., Lee, Y., Sadigh, D., Finn, C., & Goodman, N. D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23595 · Cited by 6
“For example, self-consistency [WWS + 22] can be expressed as π ϕ ( y | x, y 1: n ) = 1 { y = y i for some i ∈ arg max j N ( a ( y j )) } , where N ( a ) = =1 1 { a ( y j ) = a } and a ( y i ) is the final answer extracted from y i .”
Enabling Cloud-Level Accuracy in Edge AI through IoT Data PreprocessingPreprint
Varol, A., Kołodziej, K., Sobczak, Ł., Romaszewski, M., Głomb, P., Motlagh, N. H., Leino, M., & Virkki, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.22496 · Cited by 1
“If explanation is necessary, techniques such as answer-consistency checks or self-consistency decoding may be combined with CoT, but they introduce additional inference cost and are therefore less attractive for disconnected or latency-sensitive operation [54].”
Calibration Is Not Control: Intervention Value for LLM-Agent OversightPreprint
Zhang, C., Wan, Z., Yu, X., Wu, J., Wen, Q., Zhou, P., Zhao, W., & Tsang, I. W.-H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.21399 · Cited by 9
“Selective prediction [Geifman and El-Yaniv, 2017, 2019], reasoning-time branch selection [Wang et al., 2022b, Yao et al., 2023, Snell et al., 2025], process-level verifiers [Lightman et al., 2024, Uesato et al., 2022], post-hoc failure attribution [Yeh et al., 2026], and test-time orchestration…”
How to Ask the AI: A User Perspective Survey for Large Language Model Prompting
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhao, M., Feng, S., & Cheung, Y. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2026.3700136 · Cited by 3
“Self-improve prompting (e.g., self-consistency [56]), focuses on generating multiple initial outputs first, then iteratively refining them to enhance performance.”
InfluentialOpenRath: Session-Centered Runtime State for Agent SystemsPreprint
Wen, F., Wang, Z., & Xu, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.19409 · Cited by 2
“Chain-of-thought prompting and self-consistency elicit and stabilize intermediate reasoning at inference time [8, 9].”
Quantifying Consistency in LLM Logical Reasoning via Structural Uncertainty
Chaudhury, B., Wang, M.-D., Park, H., Ghosh, R., Hong, S., & Woo, J. O. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.17312 · Cited by 2
Agentic Framework for Deep Learning workload migration via In-Context Learning
Liang, Q., Ingram, S., Vanica, G., Gavrilescu, A., Harrat, N., Sipra, H., & Sankaran, S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.15994 · Cited by 2
“However, even with improvements in reasoning approaches like Chain of Thought [9] and Self-Consistency [8], LLMs still struggle with strict framework translation.”
EChO-Agent: Evidence Chain Orchestration Agent for Audio Reasoning
Zhang, S.-Y., Zong, J.-T., Wang, J.-Y., Jiang, P.-Y., Yan, J.-H., Zhang, J., Wang, T.-R., Wang, X.-B., Wang, L.-B., & Dang, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.15141 · Cited by 2
“This mechanism provides an implicit self-consistency check [13] without requiring expensive majority voting over many samples, and significantly reduces the rate of random errors in large-scale evaluation.”
Self-citationAn Extensible Agentic Framework for Expert-Level Automation of Atomistic SimulationsPreprint
Park, Y., Chung, Y.-O.-H., You, J., Kim, J., Ju, S., & Han, S.-W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.09422 · Cited by 2
“While explicit, single-step instructions yield low variance in their execution [68], tasks demanding complex inference or the interpretation of implicit physical or technical contexts introduce significant run-to-run variance.”
Semantic Quorum Assurance: Collective Certification for Non-Deterministic AI InfrastructurePreprint
He, J., & Yu, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.08021 · Cited by 3
“Self-consistency samples multiple reasoning paths and aggregates answers to improve reasoning accuracy [24].”
Qi, M.-S., Deng, W., Zhang, X.-L., & Ma, H.-D. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06002 · Cited by 2
“[37] propose a novel strategy called self-consistency to enhance CoT prompting.”
Miyazawa, T., & Okuno, H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.04323 · Cited by 2
“Our core method is answer-level self-consistency, inspired by self-consistency decoding for reasoning [7].”
InfluentialZhang, M., Feng, R.-H., Tang, H., Zhao, Y., Yang, J., Qiu, H., & Liu, Q. (2026) · Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks · doi:10.1109/secon68281.2026.11579014 · Cited by 2
“This issue can be eased via upgraded foundation models and self-consistency methods [5], and our extensible framework supports future LLM upgrades for better precision.”
Failed Reasoning Traces Tell You What Is Fixable (But Not by Reading Them)Preprint
Islah, N., Abbes, I., Rish, I., Chandar, S., & Muller, E. B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05145 · Cited by 1
“Best-of-N (Stiennon et al., 2020; Cobbe et al., 2021), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023), and retry-style evaluation (Chen et al., 2021), along with recent test-time scaling that allocates more inference compute (Snell et al., 2024; DeepSeek-AI, 2025; Muennighoff et al., 2025), all spend…”
PhysDox: Benchmarking LLMs on Physical Feasibility Auditing of Physiological Sensing Protocols
Liu, H., Gu, B.-Y., Cheng, S., Sun, H., You, S.-Y., & Hu, X.-M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05003 · Cited by 2
“Existing inference-time interventions—chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023), and tool-augmented prompting (Yao et al., 2023b; Schick et al., 2023)—are commonly used to improve reasoning reliability.”
World Models Meet Language Models: On the Complementarity of Concrete and Abstract Reasoning
Zhou, Y.-C., Tao, W., Guo, Y.-W., & Shen, J.-B. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.03603 · Cited by 2
Hallucination Is Linearly Decodable from Mid-Layer Hidden States in Quantized LLMsPreprint
Aiersilan, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.02628 · Cited by 6
“…SAPLMA-style linear and MLP probes [2] on per-layer hidden states; (ii) INSIDE EigenScore [4] over multiple sampled completions; (iii) self-consistency [23,18] scored by exact-match plurality and sentence-embedding similarity [21]; and (iv) attention-entropy summaries at three transformer blocks.”
TraceGraph: Shared Decision Landscapes for Diagnosing and Improving Agent TrajectoriesPreprint
Nian, J., Chen, K., Zhang, G., Cao, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.31308 · Cited by 1
“Chain-of-thought and self-consistency showed that sampled traces expose alternative reasoning paths before answers are aggregated [16, 18].”
CAST: Non-Privileged Clipped Asymmetric Self-Teaching with Advantage Flipping for GRPOPreprint
Li, Y., Xue, G., Yijia, G., Yuan, Y., Hu, L., & Ma, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.00172 · Cited by 3
“Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) [20] samples multiple trajectories per prompt and estimates group-relative advantages from verifier outcomes, offering a scalable alternative to critic-based policy optimization [24, 3, 8].”
Self-Trained Verification for Training- and Test-Time Self-ImprovementPreprint
Wu, C. H., & Raghunathan, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30290 · Cited by 4
“Scaling test-time compute (OpenAI, 2024; DeepSeek-AI et al., 2025; Snell et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024) – through self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), best-of-N (Brown et al., 2024), extending unstructured chains of thought (Setlur et al., 2025), or multi-turn verification (Shao et al., 2025) –…”
Conformal Certification of Reasoning Trace Prefixes
Cheung, M. Y., Veeraraghavan, A., Chen, H.-J., & Balakrishnan, G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30085 · Cited by 2
“Our key observation is that prefix contamination – the event where a retained prefix contains at least one erroneous step – can be represented as a binary loss that is monotonic with respect to the threshold.”
Thinking as Compression: Your Reasoning Model is Secretly a Context CompressorPreprint
Ma, G., Liu, Y., Li, C., Liang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, K., Zhang, Z., Sun, Z., & Shi, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28713 · Cited by 1
“Subsequent methods, including self-consistency [36], process supervision [25], and reinforcement learning [10, 43, 45], further improve the robustness and quality of these thinking trajectories.”
Uncertainty-Aware Budget Allocation for Adaptive Test-Time ReasoningPreprint
Nguyen, M., Gupta, S., & Le, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.26849 · Cited by 1
“Test-time compute scaling, which generates multiple outputs and aggregates them via self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) or best-of-N selection (Lightman et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2026b), is an effective way to improve accuracy (Snell et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2025).”
ARBITER: Reasoning Trajectory Basins and Majority Vote Failures in Test-Time Sampling
Cai, M.-Z., Kulik, L., & Choudhury, F. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.26172 · Cited by 2
“Chain-of-thought prompting and self-consistency established the standard recipe of sampling multiple reasoning traces and aggregating final answers [Wei et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2023].”
Inference Time Optimization with Confidence DynamicsPreprint
Wang, Y., Liu, M., Wang, J., Huang, J., Shah, A., & Wei, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.25244 · Cited by 2
“Two major directions include: a) Increasing reasoning trajectory: previous work like Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022) proposes to scale reasoning steps by lengthening thinking steps in a single reasoning trajectory.”
InfluentialMeta-Agent: From Task Descriptions to Verified Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Xu, A., & Tai, Y.-W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.25233 · Cited by 2
Clustering as Reasoning: A k-Means Interpretation of Chain-of-Thought Graph Learning
Xie, X., Guo, Z., Li, B., Yu, X.-T., Liao, Z.-F., Kang, Z., & Fang, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24867 · Cited by 2
“By decomposing complex problems into intermediate reasoning steps (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023b; Chu et al., 2023), CoT allows models to attain expert-level proficiency in sophisticated domains (Feng et al., 2023).”
Dual-Use AI Face Swap Apps Are Mostly Unsafe: A Systematic Safety Audit
Daffalla, A., Chao, S., & Zeng, E. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24735 · Cited by 2
“Multiple works in the literature have suggested this as a best practice for improving LLM performance on reasoning tasks [72].”
When Does Multi-Agent RL Improve LLM Workflows? Workflow, Scale, and Policy-Sharing TradeoffsPreprint
Zeng, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhao, W., Wan, K., Wu, Q., & Wang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24202 · Cited by 3
“…LLM workflows have become a common inference-time way to extract more capability than a single forward pass can deliver, often by decomposing generation, evaluation, aggregation, or delegation across multiple model calls (Yang et al., 2026; Wu et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023).”
DRIVESPATIAL: A Benchmark for Spatiotemporal Intelligence in VLMs for Autonomous DrivingPreprint
Vo, H., Vo, K., Nguyen, P. L., Tran, S., Nguyen, D. M., Cuong, N. X., Gawugah, G., Godavarthi, S. A. T., Rainwater, C. E., Bui, N. D. Q., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23176 · Cited by 2
“Specifically, we consider Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [105, 106], Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) [107], and Self-Consistency (SC) [108].”
PACE: Two-Timescale Self-Evolution for Small Language Model Agents
Ling, C., Chen, P., Guan, A., Qu, J., Akbar, S. A., Gopinathan, M., & Cornejo, E. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23019 · Cited by 2
“The convergence suggests that generate–evaluate–refine is a natural attractor in the space of inference-time strategies discoverable by SLMs, analogous to how self-consistency and chain-of-thought emerge as effective patterns in the prompting literature [Wang et al., 2023, Wei et al., 2022].”
Manifold-Guided Attention Steering
Li, I., Guruprasad, K., Sengupta, R., Satish, N., D'Antoni, L., & Yu, R. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21770 · Cited by 2
“Under repeated sampling, the same model and prompt that produce an incorrect solution will often produce a correct one [3, 20, 4], suggesting that the capability is present, but its reliable expression is not.”
Diagnosing Multi-step Reasoning Failures in Black-box LLMs via Stepwise Confidence AttributionPreprint
Liu, X., Chen, T., Zhang, D., Wang, Y., Cheng, L., & Wei, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.19228 · Cited by 2
“Solution traces such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022) or Graph-of-Thought Proceedings of the 43 rd International Conference on Machine Learning , Seoul, South Korea.”
A-ProS: Towards Reliable Autonomous Programming Through Multi-Model Feedback
Tabassum, A., Hossain, M. S., Arefin, M. F., Islam, T., & Zaman, T. S. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3820891 · Cited by 2
TClone: Low-Latency Forking of Live GUI Environments for Computer-Use AgentsPreprint
Huang, Y., Srivatsa, V., van Asch, A., Patwa, H. T., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.17320 · Cited by 2
“For language tasks, methods such as best-of-N sampling, beam search, self-consistency, and tree search improve accuracy by exploring multiple candidate solutions before selecting one [31,35,36].”
Learning-Zone Energy: Online Data Selection for Efficient RL Post-Training
Cui, P., Yang, B., & Zhu, J.-X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.17003 · Cited by 2
“Building on chain-of-thought reasoning [35], self-consistency decoding [34], and tree search [43, 47], reinforcement learning has become the dominant post-training paradigm for LLM reasoning.”
Reliability and Effectiveness of Autonomous AI Agents in Supply Chain ManagementPreprint
Long, C. X., Simchi‐Levi, D., Zhu, F., Su, H., Calmon, A. D. P., & Calmon, F. P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.17036 · Cited by 3
“…analysis connects to work on test-time compute, where LLM performance is improved by sampling multiple candidate responses, applying self-consistency or voting, or allocating more inference compute to harder instances [Wang et al., 2022, Wu et al., 2024, Snell et al., 2024, Brown et al., 2024].”
Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM ReasoningPreprint
Manchingal, S. K., Kalia, A., Gonçalves, F., & Rawther, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18871 · Cited by 1
“Chain-of-thought prompting [Wei et al., 2022, Kojima et al., 2022] elicits step-by-step reasoning; self-consistency [Wang et al., 2023], least-to-most prompting [Zhou et al., 2023], and Tree of Thoughts [Yao et al., 2023] extend it via marginalisation, decomposition, and branching search.”
SliceGraph: Mapping Process Isomers in Multi-Run Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Chen, K., Nian, J., Cao, Y.-X., & Jiang, Y.-G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14619 · Cited by 2
Where Does Reasoning Break? Step-Level Hallucination Detection via Hidden-State Transport Geometry
Alvarez, T., & Baheri, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13772 · Cited by 2
“Semantic entropy [17] and self-consistency [24] sample many completions and aggregate, requiring multiple forward passes and producing only trace-level scores.”
Inference-Time Amplification of Weak Reasoning Models
Sunkaraneni, V., Beneventano, P., Neumarker, R., Poggio, T. A., & Galanti, T. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14163 · Cited by 2
“Existing methods use majority vote, self-consistency, reward models, learned verifiers, LLM-as-a-judge, or task-specific checks to choose among sampled candidates (Wang et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023; Cobbe et al., 2021; Lightman et al., 2024; Jiang et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2025).”
Learn to Think: Improving Multimodal Reasoning through Vision-Aware Self-Improvement Training
Zhong, Q.-H., Ding, L., Xuan, W.-J., Liu, J.-H., Du, B., & Tao, D.-C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.11931 · Cited by 2
Measuring Five-Nines Reliability: Sample-Efficient LLM Evaluation in Saturated BenchmarksPreprint
Kim, E., Gu, C., Tiwari, V., & Kolter, J. Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.11209 · Cited by 2
“This phenomenon sharpens under self-consistency decoding with majority voting (Wang et al., 2023), which filters out random errors and reveals inputs that consistently trigger failures across multiple generations.”
InfluentialFERA: Uncertainty-Aware Federated Reasoning for Large Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, R., Huang, C., Wang, Z., Wu, J., Wang, R., Yu, T., McAuley, J., Yao, L., & Zhou, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.10082 · Cited by 2
“Self-consistency generates multiple reasoning paths and selects the most frequent answer among them (Wang et al., 2022).”
InfluentialSelf-citationTeleResilienceBench: Quantifying Resilience for LLM Reasoning in Telecommunications
Gajjar, P., Ojo, E., & Shah, V. K. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09929 · Cited by 2
“Chain-of-thought prompting, self-consistency, and STaR demonstrate the value of generating or aggregating step-by-step rationales for stronger final-answer accuracy [11, 17, 18].”
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