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 301–400 of 1,205
Spend Less, Reason Better: Budget-Aware Value Tree Search for LLM AgentsPreprint
Li, Y., Deng, W., Li, J., & Li, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.12634 · Cited by 14
“Methodologies such as Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022b), Tree of Thoughts (ToT) (Yao et al., 2023), Graph of Thoughts (GoT) (Besta et al., 2024), and Language Agent Tree Search (LATS) (Zhou et al., 2023a) formulate the reasoning process as a search problem over a vast state space.”
Through the Lens of Contrast: Self-Improving Visual Reasoning in VLMsPreprint
Pan, Z., Wu, Y., Hua, J., Feng, J., Yan, S., Deng, B., Cao, Z., & Ye, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02556 · Cited by 6
“This emergent ability can be further enhanced by various techniques (Wang et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023b; Hao et al., 2023; Gao et al., 2023; OpenAI, 2024b; Guo et al., 2025).”
MASPOB: Bandit-Based Prompt Optimization for Multi-Agent Systems with Graph Neural Networks
Hong, Z., Zhang, Q., Sun, J., Shang, Z., Kong, M., Wang, X., Shu, Y., & Dai, Z. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02630
“Prior work has shown that prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022), Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) (Yao et al., 2023a), Re-Act (Yao et al., 2023b), and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023b) can substantially improve the reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs).”
Self-citationAre LLMs reliable code reviewers? systematic overcorrection in requirement conformance judgement
Jin, H., & Chen, H. (2026) · Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10515-026-00638-5 · Cited by 13
“More broadly, work on red-teaming language models emphasizes that model behavior can be manipulated through prompt framing and adversarial or leading instructions, which is directly relevant when judgements are elicited via structured prompts that request explanations and fixes [46].”
Scientific knowledge graph and ontology generation using open large language models
Bran, A. M., Hart, M., Bran, A. C. M. M., Lederbauer, M., & Schwaller, P. (2026) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d5dd00275c · Cited by 1
“Many generic methods have been proposed that improve LLMs outputs without training data, fine-tuning or reinforcement learning, which includes, among others, self-consistency 49 , debating LLMs 15 , and self-refinement 34 .”
On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To CapabilityPreprint
Yang, S.-H., Wu, C.-K., Wu, C.-X., Lin, C.-Y., Chen, Y.-N., Lee, H.-Y., & Sun, S.-H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13540 · Cited by 10
“Response consistency (Wang et al., 2023).”
VI-CuRL: Stabilizing Verifier-Independent RL Reasoning via Confidence-Guided Variance Reduction
Cai, X.-Q., & Sugiyama, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12579 · Cited by 10
“Recent advances in LLM reasoning have been significantly propelled by RL. Chain-of-thought prompting [30] and self-consistency [29] established reasoning as a multi-step process amenable to RL optimization.”
Bai, J., Li, Y., Zhu, Y., Xin, Y., Shi, Q., Feng, A., Liu, X., Tao, M., Xue, J., Li, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01842 · Cited by 9
“Test-time scaling (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Brown et al., 2024; Jaech et al., 2024b; Muennighoff et al., 2025; Snell et al., 2024) studies how to convert additional inference-time computation into higher task accuracy by generating, refining, and selecting among multiple trajectories.”
InfluentialMetaGen: Self-Evolving Roles and Topologies for Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning
Wang, Y., Zhao, J.-X., Xie, H., Ma, H., Lei, Y.-Z., Liu, S.-X., Song, X., Zhang, Z.-C., & Zhang, H.-R. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19290 · Cited by 10
LogicReward: Incentivizing LLM Reasoning via Step-Wise Logical Supervision
Xu, J., Fei, H., Zhou, H.-C., Quan, X., Huang, Q., Wu, S.-Q., Wang, W., Lee, M. L., & Hsu, W. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.18196 · Cited by 10
ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM ReasoningPreprint
Potamitis, N., Ramani, V., Arora, H. A., Kuchhal, D., Klein, L., & Arora, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07795 · Cited by 13
The Art of Scaling Test-Time Compute for Large Language ModelsPreprint
Agarwal, A., Sengupta, A., & Chakraborty, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02008 · Cited by 21
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting (Wei et al., 2023) is a fundamental idea, and subsequent work like STaR (Zelikman et al., 2022) and Reflexion (Shinn et al., 2023) explore revision through trial-and-error or verbal self-reflection.”
Video-R2: Reinforcing Consistent and Grounded Reasoning in Multimodal Language ModelsPreprint
Maaz, M., Rasheed, H., Khan, F. S., & Khan, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.23478 · Cited by 12
“Prompting-based strategies like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting [120], Self-Consistency [118], and Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) [131] enable models to produce intermediate reasoning steps.”
Aragog: Just-in-Time Model Routing for Scalable Serving of Agentic Workflows
Dai, Y., Chen, Z., Iyer, A., & Netravali, R. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20975 · Cited by 10
“• Majority voting [46] (four parallel voters and one aggregator) on MMLU-Pro [47] (1,500 sampled questions), where multiple reasoning paths are generated in parallel and aggregated.”
Gao, Z., Liang, D., Wu, X.-J., Morel, P., & Peng, M.-L. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19097 · Cited by 10
“Self-Consistency (Wang et al. 2023; Liang et al. 2019b) samples multiple reasoning paths and selects consistent answers, improving accuracy through diverse trajectories.”
C3PO: Optimized Large Language Model Cascades with Probabilistic Cost Constraints for Reasoning
Valkanas, A., Pal, S., Rumiantsev, P., Zhang, Y., & Coates, M. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07396 · Cited by 10
“Self-Consistency [Wang et al., 2023] None Sample consensus None Mixture-of-Thoughts (MoT) [Yue et al., 2024] None Self-consistency voting None ESC / Adaptive SC [Li et al., 2024b,a] None Stopping tests None Neural Caching [Ramírez et al., 2024] None Conf.”
Culture in Action: Evaluating Text-to-Image Models through Social ActivitiesPreprint
Malakouti, S., Gong, B., & Kovashka, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05681 · Cited by 2
“(1) Proposer: The proposer stage uses multiple LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Flash (Comanici et al., 2025) and GPT-4o (Hurst et al., 2024)) to generate diverse descriptor candidates, maximizing recall of cultural elements.”
InfluentialDo LLMs Signal When They're Right? Evidence from Neuron Agreement
Chen, K., Wang, Y.-N., Xiong, K., Feng, Z., Sun, W., Chen, H.-T., & Cao, Y.-X. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26277 · Cited by 10
“Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities (Wei et al., 2022; Tang et al., 2024).”
LLMs are Overconfident: Evaluating Confidence Interval Calibration with FermiEvalPreprint
Epstein, E., Winnicki, J., Sornwanee, T., & Dwaraknath, R. V. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26995 · Cited by 10
Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think
Chen, Y., Benton, J., Radhakrishnan, A., Uesato, J., Denison, C., Schulman, J., Somani, A., Hase, P., Wagner, M., Roger, F., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05410 · Cited by 18
Test-Time Scaling for World Action Models via Zero-Shot Geometric Evaluation
Zhao, Z.-S., Cho, M., Shen, H., Zheng, B., Gao, K., Cao, Y.-L., & Mao, Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.17454 · Cited by 9
“Robotic policies increasingly adopt the sample-and-select paradigm of test-time scaling [18, 22–24]: RoboMonkey uses a trained VLM-based verifier [9], RoVer a robot process reward model [4], MG-Select model-internal masked-distribution signals [7], and WAV forward–inverse asymmetry of world-model…”
Vector Policy Optimization: Training for Diversity Improves Test-Time SearchPreprint
Boldi, R., Puri, I., Shenfeld, I., Kumar, A., Damani, M., Risi, S., Khattab, O., Hong, Z.-W., & Agrawal, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.22817 · Cited by 6
“Best-of-N sampling [Beirami et al., 2025], self-consistency [Wang et al., 2022], particle filtering [Puri et al., 2025], and Tree-of-Thoughts [Yao et al., 2023] draw or expand many candidates and select among them.”
Tailoring Teaching to Aptitude: Direction-Adaptive Self-Distillation for LLM Reasoning
Zhang, H., Wang, C.-Z., Chen, K.-H., Pan, Y.-C., Xiang, Y., Wang, J., & Zhang, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.22263 · Cited by 9
“Chain-of-thought prompting and zero-shot variants showed that step-by-step rationalization unlocks reasoning at scale [61–63], and self-consistency aggregates diverse rollouts to improve final-answer accuracy [64].”
Benchmarking and behavioral characterization of LLM agents for protein designPreprint
Kim, J., & Romero, P. A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.06.723381 · Cited by 6
“Existing work emphasizes end-to-end performance or isolated successes, but provides limited insight 2 Results”
Knowing When to Quit: A Principled Framework for Dynamic Abstention in LLM Reasoning
Davidov, H., Cohen, N., Kalinsky, O., Fairstein, Y., Kushilevitz, G., Yazdi, R., & Rebeschini, P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18419 · Cited by 9
Lin, J., Zhu, C., Kneuertz, P. J., Bai, Y., & Xue, Y. (2026) · 2026 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition- FINDINGS Track (CVPRF) · doi:10.1109/cvprf71909.2026.00534 · Cited by 13
“Some meth-ods further improve CoT through diverse path sampling and majority voting [84] and demonstrates that CoT can emerge without explicit prompting via alternative decoding strategies [83].”
Zhou, S.-S., Zhou, Q., Ma, J., Cao, Y., Hu, R., Zhang, Z., Yang, X.-D., Wang, Z.-B., Song, J., Yu, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22228 · Cited by 9
“Since spatial relationship assessment requires a sequence of reasoning steps that link detected facts to relative positions and overall layouts, we incorporate the verified grounding into a chain-of-thought (CoT) process [58, 60, 69] within a vision–language model.”
WirelessBench: A Tolerance-Aware LLM Agent Benchmark for Wireless Network Intelligence
Tong, J.-W., Liu, F., Xv, L., Lu, S.-L., Li, K., Zhang, Y., Song, Y., Xue, Z., & Zhang, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21251 · Cited by 9
“(ii) Advanced prompting: Chain-of-Thought Self-Consistency (CoT-SC, k = 5 ) [38], [39] and MedPrompt [40] with GPT-4o.”
Zhao, X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.18940 · Cited by 9
“Self-consistency methods [Wang et al., 2023] aggregate answers from multiple independently sampled chains, but require 10–40 samples per question and discard the rich step-level information within each chain.”
Huang, Z., Liu, Y.-H., Lin, B., Lou, Y., He, Z.-B., Tian, H.-L., Li, T.-R., & Huang, X.-L. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22538 · Cited by 9
“…into subgoals ordered from easy to hard; Program-of-Thoughts and PAL externalize the reasoning into executable programs, decoupling computation from reasoning and substantially reducing arithmetic and procedural errors (Wang et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023a; Chen et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2023).”
Know When You're Wrong: Aligning Confidence with Correctness for LLM Error Detection
Xie, X., Liu, X., & Yao, B. Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06604 · Cited by 9
“Detection methods like self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022) sample multiple outputs but lack quantitative confidence measures, while correction methods like Chain-of-Verification (Dhuliawala et al., 2024) fix hallucinations uniformly without identifying which outputs need correction.”
From Conflict to Consensus: Boosting Medical Reasoning via Multi-Round Agentic RAGPreprint
Wu, W.-H., Tang, Z.-T., Li, Y.-F., Kai, S.-X., Yuan, M.-H., Sun, Z.-H., Chen, C., & Wang, Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.03292 · Cited by 9
“This observation naturally aligns with the core principle of self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2023) that complex reasoning tasks typically admit multiple reasoning paths toward a correct consensus, which is elaborated in Sec.”
InfluentialTang, L., Yu, M., Costa, J., Zhang, Y., Ye, M., & Xi, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07186 · Cited by 8
“This aligns with findings that reasoning consistency is crucial for complex problems (Wang et al., 2022).”
Semantic Uncertainty Quantification of Hallucinations in LLMs: A Quantum Tensor Network Based MethodPreprint
Vipulanandan, P., Premaratne, K., & Sarkar, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20026 · Cited by 5
Feng, X., Gan, W., Chen, X., Dai, Q., & Liu, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16621 · Cited by 13
“• CoT-SC (Wang et al., 2023): This method generates multiple independent reasoning paths and employs a majority-voting mechanism to select the most consistent intent judgment, thereby enhancing the reliability of memory utilization.”
InfluentialMedea: An AI agent for therapeutic reasoning across biological contextsPreprint
Sui, P., Li, M. M., Munson, B. P., Gao, S., Shen, W., Giunchiglia, V., Shen, A. N., Huang, Y., Kong, Z., Licon, K., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.16.696667 · Cited by 13
Recurrent Confidence Chain: Temporal-Aware Uncertainty Quantification in Large Language Models
Mao, Z., & Venkat, A. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.13368 · Cited by 9
“We also benchmark our method against two prominent uncertainty quantification techniques: Self-Consistency [16], and Verbalized Uncertainty [17].”
Wang, J., Zhao, S., Liu, J., Wang, H., Li, W., Qin, B., & Liu, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04861 · Cited by 8
“The rise of LLM agents in recent years has achieved great success in planning (Qiao et al., 2024; Song et al., 2023), mathematical reasoning (Wang et al., 2022; Swan et al., 2023), code generation (Zhang et al., 2024c; Li et al., 2025) and tool-augmented inference (Shen et al., 2023; Jiang et al.,…”
SPIRAL: Symbolic LLM Planning via Grounded and Reflective Search
Zhang, Y.-F., Ganapavarapu, G., Jayaraman, S., Agrawal, B., Patel, D., & Fokoue, A. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.23167 · Cited by 9
Zero-Overhead Introspection for Adaptive Test-Time ComputePreprint
Manvi, R., Hong, J., Seyde, T., Labonne, M., Lechner, M., & Levine, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01457 · Cited by 4
“(1) Majority Voting (MV) (self-consistency), which selects the most frequent final answer, breaking ties uniformly at random (Wang et al., 2023a).”
RL with KL penalties is better viewed as Bayesian inference
Korbak, T., Perez, E., & Buckley, C. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.77 · Cited by 8
Automated Design of Agentic Systems
Hu, S., Lu, C., & Clune, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.08435 · Cited by 10
“…the reasoning before answering to improve complex problem-solving through intermediate steps; (2) Self-Consistency with Chain-of-Thought (COT-SC, Wang et al. (2023b)), which ensembles multiple parallel answers from COT to produce a more accurate answer; (3) Self-Refine (Madaan et al., 2024;…”
InfluentialChatLogic: Integrating Logic Programming with Large Language Models for Multi-Step Reasoning
Wang, Z., Liu, J., Bao, Q., Rong, H., & Zhang, J. (2024) · 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10650138 · Cited by 8
“This approach significantly enhances the performance of LLMs by combining various prompt engineering methods.”
MethodDiagnosis Before Recovery: Turning Agent Failures into Selective Self-CorrectionPreprint
Wang, P., Hu, Y., Wang, H., Lv, Z., Zhang, X., Li, J., Yang, J.-M., Wu, W., & Tong, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.11772 · Cited by 8
“Broader reasoning and refinement methods use chain-of-thought, self-consistency, decomposition, search, or process supervision to make intermediate reasoning states more explicit [14, 31, 40, 46, 70, 72, 76, 81– 83, 91, 93, 96].”
When Does Latent Communication Pay? A Causal Audit of Relayed KV Caches in Multi-Agent LLMs
Cheng, J., Das, S., & Ramnath, R. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.04893 · Cited by 8
“…exchange visible messages and report accuracy gains from doing so (Du et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025; Jiang et al., 2023), with self-consistency as the single-model analogue (Wang et al., 2023b) and routing deciding when collaboration is worth invoking (Chen et al., 2024; Ong et al., 2024).”
TRIAGE: Role-Typed Credit Assignment for Agentic Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Xu, Y., Zhou, Z., Sang, H., Li, X., Zhang, J., Du, X., Na, S., Wang, Z., & Geramifard, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.32017 · Cited by 5
“Related prompting and self-improvement methods also exploit multiple sampled reasoning paths, search trees, or self-generated rationales to expose useful intermediate information [Wang et al., 2023, Yao et al., 2023b, Zelikman et al., 2022].”
When More Sampling Hurts: The Modal Ceiling and Correlation Ceiling of Test-Time ScalingPreprint
Bay, Y. Y., & Yearick, K. A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.28661 · Cited by 7
“A reasoning model can be made stronger at inference time by spending more compute, and the compute goes to one of two levers: longer reasoning, letting the model think more before it answers, or more sampling, drawing n answers to one prompt and combining them [1–4].”
Impact analysis of regulatory requirement changes on business process compliance
Barrientos, M., Winter, K., & Rinderle-Ma, S. (2026) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2026.108079 · Cited by 8
LLMs Improving LLMs: Agentic Discovery for Test-Time ScalingPreprint
Zheng, T., Liu, H., Huang, C., Bao, H., Zhang, S., Liu, R., Dai, R., Chen, R., Liu, C., Xiong, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08083 · Cited by 12
“…view, several representative methods correspond to different trajectories through the space: some expand width by sampling more reasoning branches [1, 2, 3]; some increase depth by extending reasoning trajectories [9, 14]; and others introduce adaptive stopping, pruning, or selection rules to…”
Same Signal, Opposite Meaning: Direction-Informed Adaptive Learning for LLM Agents
Li, Z.-M., Huang, J.-T., Guo, X.-G., Wang, G.-L., & Zhang, C.-X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.06908 · Cited by 8
“Repeated independent sampling with majority aggregation exploits smooth coverage gains as the sample budget grows [56, 57], while verifiers trained over intermediate reasoning steps rerank candidates or steer search [58, 59].”
The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology
Spitzer, P., Hendriks, D., Rudolph, J., Schlaeger, S., Ricke, J., Kühl, N., Hoppe, B. F., & Feuerriegel, S. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02619-0 · Cited by 12
“Subsequent studies have demonstrated that variations of chain-of-thought prompting can further enhance reasoning consistency and robustness across tasks 20 .”
Autonomous driving system based on dual process theory and deliberate practice theory
Zhang, X., Hu, T., Lyu, J., Liu, Q., Zhao, Q., Li, M., Li, K., SongDe, H. A. N., Chen, J., & Ma, H. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72030-6 · Cited by 5
Liu, J., Du, S., Du, W., Guo, M., & Conitzer, V. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.17139 · Cited by 11
“The foundational paradigm is Self-Consistency or Majority Voting (Wang et al., 2023), which aggregates independent reasoning paths to find the arithmetic mode.”
InfluentialDo Vision-Language Models Truly Perform Vision Reasoning? A Rigorous Study of the Modality GapPreprint
Xu, Y., Wang, Y., Wu, Z., Song, K.-S., Lin, J., & Shen, Z.-Q. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.16256 · Cited by 8
“Although textual reasoning has been widely explored by the community (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2025a;b), a growing body of work suggests that strong language-side reasoning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) does not automatically translate into visually…”
Knowing When Not to Answer: Evaluating Abstention in Multimodal Reasoning Systems
Madhusudhan, N., Yadav, V., & Lacoste, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.14799 · Cited by 8
Hear Both Sides: Efficient Multi-Agent Debate via Diversity-Aware Message RetentionPreprint
Nguyen, M., Nguyen, A. V., Nguyen, D., Venkatesh, S., & Le, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20640 · Cited by 8
“At the same time, prior work has shown that diversity in prompts or reasoning paths can improve answer quality, as different prompts encourage the model to explore alternative reasoning trajectories and reduce correlated errors (Wang et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2025).”
Patel, T. P., Shivam, S., & Ranganathan, V. (2026) · International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/isdfs69419.2026.11458958 · Cited by 8
“Self-consistency [26]— majority voting over multiple sampled solutions—provides a training-free alternative to learned verifiers, offering competitive accuracy at reduced deployment complexity.”
Tool Verification for Test-Time Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Liao, R., Röhrich, N., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Samadzadeh, Y., Volker Tresp, C., & Yeung, S. Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02203 · Cited by 12
“Test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) has emerged as a promising paradigm for self-evolving large reasoning models (LRMs), enabling online adaptation on unlabeled test inputs via self-induced rewards through majority voting.”
Self-citationThinking by Subtraction: Confidence-Driven Contrastive Decoding for LLM Reasoning
Tang, L.-X., Gao, W., Zhao, B., Ma, L., Jin, Q., Yang, B., & Zou, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.18232 · Cited by 8
“A prominent line of work focuses on parallel scaling , which generates multiple reasoning trajectories and aggregates them through majority voting or reward models (Wang et al., 2022).”
On the Consistency of Automatic Scoring with Large Language Models
Xue, M., Xiao, X., Liu, Y., & Wilson, M. (2026) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131644261418138 · Cited by 10
“In RQ4, informed by the voting strategy used in the field of machine learning (Liang et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2022), we investigate a majority voting strategy in exploiting the inconsistency of automatic scoring by choosing the mode of the scores.”
GeoAgent: Learning to Geolocate Everywhere with Reinforced Geographic CharacteristicsPreprint
Jin, M., Zhang, Y., Sun, B., Zhang, D., Cheng, M.-M., & Hou, Q. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12617 · Cited by 6
“Particularly, with the emergence of reinforcement learning–based meth-ods [50, 59, 28, 71], some approaches [84, 99] incorporate chain-of-thought (CoT) data [88, 43, 15, 100, 86] and reasoning processes [26, 16, 48] into geolocation.”
Agentic Test-Time Scaling for WebAgentsPreprint
Lee, N., Erdogan, L. E., John, C. J., Krishnapillai, S., Mahoney, M. W., Keutzer, K., & Gholami, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12276 · Cited by 8
“Self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2023) demonstrated substantial gains on reasoning tasks by sampling multiple chain-of-thought traces (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022) and taking a majority vote over final answers, treating it as an ensemble problem.”
Optimal Bayesian Stopping for Efficient Inference of Consistent LLM Answers
Huang, J., Ma, W., & Zhou, Z.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.05395 · Cited by 8
“A key catalyst for this success is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, which encourages models to generate intermediate reasoning steps before deriving a final answer (Brown et al., 2020; Kojima et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022).”
When Silence Is Golden: Can LLMs Learn to Abstain in Temporal QA and Beyond?Preprint
Zhou, X., Jin, C., Eickhoff, C., Guo, Z., & Bahrainian, S. A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04755 · Cited by 4
“We highlight that smaller models benefit more from the CoT-SFT cold start than knowledge graphs or contexts, which is essential to elicit reasoning ability.”
InfluentialScaling Agentic Verifier for Competitive Coding
Ma, Z.-Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, X.-K., Yang, J.-X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-H., Zhang, L., Zheng, H., Zhao, W.-T., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04254 · Cited by 8
“A common strategy to further boost accuracy is to sample multiple candidate solutions and apply a verifier to select the best one (Cobbe et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023; Lightman et al., 2024).”
Workflow-R1: Group Sub-sequence Policy Optimization for Multi-turn Workflow ConstructionPreprint
Kong, M., Qu, Z., Zhou, Z., Liang, P., Li, X., Shang, Z., Hong, Z., Huang, K., Wang, Z., & Dai, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01202 · Cited by 9
“5-32B-Instruct (Yang et al., 2024) using Direct Inference , Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022), Self-Consistency (SC) (Wang et al., 2022) with 5 paths, and MedPrompt (Nori et al., 2023).”
Timely Machine: Awareness of Time Makes Test-Time Scaling AgenticPreprint
Ma, Y.-C., Li, L., Chen, Y.-K., Li, P.-J., Li, X.-Z., Guo, Q.-P., Lin, D.-H., & Chen, K. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16486 · Cited by 8
“Before agentic RL became a trend, researchers investigated lengthy reasoning chains in general tasks (Qu et al., 2025; Sui et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024).”
Samuel, J., Ye, M., Khanna, T., Yao, Y., Lin, X., Anderson, R., & Gupta, A. (2025) · Expert systems with applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.130755 · Cited by 8
A zero-shot self-improving NER method for cyber threat intelligence via knowledge injection
Jiang, Y., Hu, H., Li, Y., Li, F., Zhao, C., Chen, C., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Cybersecurity · doi:10.1186/s42400-025-00503-0 · Cited by 8
“The Reliable Data Annotator applies self-consistency (Wang et al. 2023; Wei et al. 2022) to move beyond single-path predictions, while the High-Con-sistency Annotation Filter selects the most trustworthy pseudo-labels to reduce randomness.”
Mode-Conditioning Unlocks Superior Test-Time Scaling
Wu, C., Goyal, S., & Raghunathan, A. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01127 · Cited by 8
“To decide the final answer from the k attempts, one can use either majority voting (Wang et al., 2023) or a verifier (especially in the code and scientific discovery domains) (Wang et al., 2024; AlphaEvolve, 2025).”
InfluentialImproving Rare and Common ICD Coding via a Multi-Agent LLM-Based Approach
Li, R., Wang, X., & Yu, H. Q. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3746252.3760894 · Cited by 1
“” (2) Self-Consistency [35]”
Self-citationLiu, Y.-F., Lu, Y.-L., He, D., & Zhang, H. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03235 · Cited by 8
“The advent of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting [Wei et al., 2022], particularly in reasoning-enhanced models [Bi et al., 2024], suggests that models could externalize their reasoning steps.”
GeoToken: Hierarchical Geolocalization of Images via Next Token Prediction
Ghasemi, N., Ziashahabi, A., Avestimehr, S., & Shahabi, C. (2025) · Industrial Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1109/icdm65498.2025.00130 · Cited by 8
“Furthermore, inspired by advancements in large language models, we leverage autoregressive decoding with test-time scaling techniques [17], [18].”
Critique-RL: Training Language Models for Critiquing through Two-Stage Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Xi, Z., Huang, J., Guo, X., Hong, B., Yang, D., Fan, X., Li, S., Chen, Z., Ye, J., Yuan, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24320 · Cited by 7
“Following Qu et al. (2024); Snell et al. (2024); Xi et al. (2024), we leverage the commonly used majority vote (MV@ 𝐾 ) (Wang et al., 2023) which evaluates whether the most frequent answer among 𝐾 samples is correct.”
Reasoning Models Reason Well, Until They Don'tPreprint
Rameshkumar, R., Huang, J., Sun, Y., Xia, F., & Saparov, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22371 · Cited by 3
“However, even with self-consistency and verification strategies (Wang et al., 2023b,a) or the selection-inference framework (Creswell et al., 2023), large models still fail to generalize on high-complexity reasoning tasks (Saparov et al., 2025).”
AgenticMath: Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Agentic-based Math Data GenerationPreprint
Liu, X., Liu, Y., Wang, S., Cheng, H., Estornell, A., Zhao, Y., Shu, J., & Wei, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19361 · Cited by 9
“To provide high-quality reasoning traces for training, we employ a one-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting scheme that elicits multi-step reasoning solution paths.”
InfluentialSelf-citationXu, A., Nguyen, X.-P., Zhou, Y., Wu, C.-S., Xiong, C., & Joty, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17793 · Cited by 5
“Recently, sampling parallel judgments and aggregating via majority vote, i.e., self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), has been used to improve evaluator performance.”
Sang, Y. (2025) · 2025 6th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computer Application (ICMLCA) · doi:10.1109/icmlca66850.2025.11336788 · Cited by 8
“Wang [17] suggested self-consistency, where multiple paths of reasoning are sampled and merged by majority vote.”
AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation
Zhang, J., Xiang, J., Yu, Z., Teng, F., Chen, X., Chen, J., Zhuge, M., Cheng, X., Hong, S., Wang, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10762 · Cited by 359
“We implement six common operator structures, including: Generate (Contextual, Code), Format, Review & Revise, Ensemble, Test, and Programmer.”
InfluentialExternalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering
Zhou, C., Chai, H., Chen, W., Guo, Z., Shan, R., Song, Y., Xu, T., Yang, Y., Yu, A., Zhang, W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08224 · Cited by 1
Miao, Y., Wen, J., Luo, Y., & Li, J. (2026) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.106136 · Cited by 10
Puech, R., Macina, J., Chatain, J., Sachan, M., & Kapur, M. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1348 · Cited by 11
Li, X., Li, T., Wang, M., Tao, S., Zhou, X., Wei, X., & Guan, N. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3539104 · Cited by 8
Consensus as Privileged Context for Label-Free Self-Distillation
Gkountouras, J., Jukic, J., & Titov, I. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13643 · Cited by 7
“Answers supported by many independent samples are more likely to be correct, so consistency acts as an unsupervised proxy for accuracy (Wang et al., 2022; Prasad et al., 2025).”
Stop Hand-Holding Your Coding Agent: Engineering the Loops that Replace Step-by-Step PromptingPreprint
Macedo, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.00038 · Cited by 9
“Self-consistency sampled several reasoning paths and took a majority vote rather than trusting one [42].”
Weak Critics Make Strong Learners: On-Policy Critique Distillation for Scalable OversightPreprint
Jin, C., Li, J., Wu, R., Zhang, E., & Metaxas, D. N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.00424 · Cited by 4
“Eliciting reasoning from LLMs has been driven by chain-of-thought prompting and its inference-time variants such as self-consistency and tree-search decoding (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023).”
SpecBench: Evaluating Specification-Level Reasoning for Software Engineering LLM Agents
Hamblin, G., Song, K., Zhu, Z., Jayarajan, A., Liu, S., Vijaykumar, N., & Pekhimenko, G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30314 · Cited by 7
“We accept a match if and only if it appears in at least 3 of 4 trials (majority) [21, 23].”
Wisdom of the Machines: Exploring Collective Intelligence in LLM Crowds
Talebirad, Y., Parsaee, A., Ohal, V., Nadiri, A., Szepesvari, C. Y., Mouje, Y., & Redman, E. (2026) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.65109/mtwr9974 · Cited by 7
“Self-consistency decoding [19] combines multiple outputs to improve reliability and accuracy, suggesting that ensemble methods can reveal latent capabilities.”
Understanding and Mitigating Premature Confidence for Better LLM Reasoning
Gai, J.-C., Zeng, G.-N., Baek, C., Wu, C.-L., Kolter, J., Risteski, A., & Raghunathan, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24396 · Cited by 7
Hakim, S. B., Adil, M., Velasquez, A., & Song, H. (2026) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2026.100902 · Cited by 5
Why Search When You Can Transfer? Amortized Agentic Workflow Design from Structural Priors
Du, S.-Y., Liu, J.-Y., Du, W., Huang, Y., Li, J.-Y., Luo, Y.-T., Zhang, X.-L., Conitzer, V., & Kingsford, C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25012 · Cited by 7
“Single-agent prompting strategies, chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022), complexity-based prompting (Fu et al., 2023), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023), tree-of-thought (Yao et al., 2023a), and graph-of-thought (Besta et al., 2024) all improve LLM performance through fixed reasoning patterns.”
Yagubyan, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28840 · Cited by 7
A Tale of Two Temperatures: Simple, Efficient, and Diverse Sampling from Diffusion Language Models
Olausson, T. X., Jazbec, M., Wang, X., Solar-Lezama, A., Naesseth, C., Mandt, S., & Nalisnick, E. T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.09921 · Cited by 7
“We consider two widely used such strategies: (i) self-consistency , where the most common answer is selected (Wang et al., 2023), and (ii) ORM , where an (output) reward model is used to score each generation, and the one with the highest score is returned.”
Self-citationKancheti, S. S., Kanade, A., Sinha, R., Balasubramanian, V. N., & Ganu, T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08476 · Cited by 7
“…Large Language Models (Bai et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2025; Li et al., 2024) (MLMs) have achieved strong performance on visual understanding tasks (Yue et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2023), substantially enhanced by Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).”
Squeeze Evolve: Unified Multi-Model Orchestration for Verifier-Free Evolution
Maheswaran, M., Lakhani, L., Zhou, Z., Yang, S., Wang, J., Hooper, C., Hu, Y., Tiwari, R., Wang, J., Singh, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07725
“Test-time scaling has emerged as a practical way to push language models beyond one-shot inference by spending additional compute at test time to search over or refine candidate solutions [52, 30, 50].”
ThinkTwice: Jointly Optimizing Large Language Models for Reasoning and Self-RefinementPreprint
Jiao, D., Wen, Q., Yang, B., Tang, Z., & Anderson, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01591 · Cited by 6
“A first class of methods is training-free and operates purely at inference time, such as Self-Refine, Reflexion, self-verification prompting, CRITIC, and self-consistency decoding (Madaan et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 2023; Weng et al., 2023; Gou et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022).”
Overconfidence and Calibration in Medical VQA: Empirical Findings and Hallucination-Aware Mitigation
Byun, J., Park, Y.-J., Corbeil, J.-P., & Abacha, A. B. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.02543 · Cited by 7
“The sampling-based approach approximates P θ via Monte Carlo sampling (Neal, 1993; Wang et al., 2022).”
A survey of robotic manipulation: From bottom-up approaches to end-to-end paradigms with LLMs
Peng, K., Li, Q., He, Z.-J., Zhang, B.-W., Fu, X., Li, B., Wang, X.-H., Cheng, Z.-Q., Yan, Y., & Peng, X.-J. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.132921 · Cited by 7
Self-citationProcedural Knowledge at Scale Improves ReasoningPreprint
Wu, D., Sachan, D. S., Yih, W.-T., & Chen, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01348 · Cited by 7
“…compute is allocated per instance to improve accuracy, has quickly become a central paradigm for frontier reasoning tasks in math, science, and coding (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2025; Muennighoff et al., 2025).”
When Agents Disagree: The Selection Bottleneck in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines
Maryanskyy, A., Budnikov, D., & Kaliyev, A. T. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16104914 · Cited by 7
“The contradiction is not about diversity per se but about whether the aggregator operates above or below the crossover threshold s ∗ .”
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