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 401–500 of 1,205
Medical Reasoning with Large Language Models: A Survey and MR-BenchPreprint
Ren, X., Fan, C., Ma, W., He, H., Gao, C., Zhao, X., & Feng, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08559 · Cited by 7
Brain-Inspired Graph Multi-Agent Systems for LLM ReasoningPreprint
Hao, G., Dai, Y., Qin, X., & Yu, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15371 · Cited by 6
“The first scales inference-time computation through prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought [8] and self-consistency [21], decomposition strategies such as least-to-most prompting [22] and Program of Thoughts [23], or iterative self-refinement approaches [24], or through reinforcement…”
Fu, D.-J., Sun, T.-J., Fang, P.-C., Cai, X.-H., & Kim, H. (2026) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i5.37402 · Cited by 7
Verifiable Reasoning for LLM-based Generative Recommendation
Lin, X., Zeng, H., Yu, H., Xia, Y., Zhang, J. J., Singh, A., Liu, F., Wang, W., Feng, F., Chua, T., et al. (2026) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3805712.3809622 · Cited by 2
“Although existing works can verify textual reasoning, they cannot extend to latent reasoning: Existing works essentially yield different reasoning paths and utilize verifiers to validate.”
$\textbf{Re}^{2}$: Unlocking LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning with Re-solvingPreprint
Wang, P., Xu, S., Li, J., Luo, Y., Li, D., Hao, J., & Zhang, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.07197 · Cited by 4
“Moreover, Re 2 yields a superior trade-off curve between test-time compute and performance compared to majority voting (Wang et al., 2022).”
Reference-guided Policy Optimization for Molecular Optimization via LLM Reasoning
Li, X., Zhou, Z.-K., Li, Z.-Z., Yao, J.-C., Rong, Y., Zhang, L., & Han, B. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05900 · Cited by 7
“Chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022) and its extensions (Yao et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023b) demonstrate that eliciting intermediate reasoning steps substantially improves LLM performance on complex tasks.”
Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification
Zhang, Y.-C., Seedat, N., Dong, Y., Cui, P., Zhu, J., & van der Schaar, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02798 · Cited by 7
“Meanwhile, training-free alternatives, including model-based ratings like LLM-as-a-Judge (Zheng et al., 2023) and sampling-based estimates such as self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023), are still inadequate.”
ParamMem: Augmenting Language Agents with Parametric Reflective MemoryPreprint
Yao, T., Chen, Y., Zheng, Y., Li, P., Shen, Z., & Zhang, K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.23320 · Cited by 6
“A key insight driving recent advances is test-time scaling, i.e., allocating additional computation during inference to improve reasoning (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Madaan et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023a; Shinn et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2024).”
RACER: Risk-Aware Calibrated Efficient Routing for Large Language ModelsPreprint
Hao, S., Zeng, H., Wei, H., & Jing, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06616 · Cited by 7
“In such settings, a naive strategy is to invoke all candidate models for every query and aggregate their responses via scoring or voting (Li et al., 2024b; Wang et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2023b).”
Zheng, W.-K., Yang, M.-Z., Ren, Y.-F., Wang, H.-Y., Zeng, C., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. · doi:10.3390/ijgi15020078 · Cited by 7
“For example, the Self-Consistency approach [43] generates multiple reasoning paths via temperature sampling and aggregates them using majority voting to obtain more robust predictions.”
MedXIAOHE: A Comprehensive Recipe for Building Medical MLLMsPreprint
Shi, B., Cui, B., Jiang, B., Yu, D., Qian, F., Yang, H., Wang, H., Chen, J., Pan, J., Cao, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12705 · Cited by 6
“This pipeline shifts synthesis from single-source generation to an ensemble-driven distillation process [53] (See Fig.”
Self-citationTiny Recursive Reasoning with Mamba-2 Attention Hybrid
Wang, W.-L., & Reid, F. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12078 · Cited by 7
“Large language models have excelled in reasoning tasks such as mathematics, code generation, and logical inference through chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), iterative refinement, and sampling with aggregation (Wang et al., 2022b; Yao et al., 2023).”
ThinkRouter: Efficient Reasoning via Routing Thinking between Latent and Discrete SpacesPreprint
Xu, X., Yu, T., Chen, X. '., Wang, H., McAuley, J., & Mitra, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11683 · Cited by 8
Mitigating Conversational Inertia in Multi-Turn Agents
Wan, Y., Cao, Z., Zhang, Z.-H., Zeng, Z.-W., Shen, S.-H., Meng, C.-H., & Zhu, L.-C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03664 · Cited by 7
“Complementary strategies introduce exploration–exploitation mechanisms through multi-path sampling (Wang et al., 2023) and systematic search approaches (Zhou et al., 2024; Yao et al., 2023a).”
Test-time Recursive Thinking: Self-Improvement without External FeedbackPreprint
Zhuang, Y., Singh, C., Liu, L., Shen, Y., Zhang, D., Shang, J., Gao, J., & Chen, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03094 · Cited by 10
“Parallel sampling methods generate independent reasoning traces, each unaware of insights from other attempts (Wang et al., 2022; Venkatraman et al., 2025).”
Probing the Trajectories of Reasoning Traces in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Ballon, M., Verbeken, B., Ginis, V., & Algaba, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.23163 · Cited by 11
“This approach builds on the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14], where LLMs are encouraged to increase the amount of generated tokens, through prompting, tools, or chaining intermediate responses, before giving a final response.”
ETS: Energy-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Training-Free RL Alignment
Li, X., Zhang, J.-K., Yi, M.-Y., Li, Y., Wang, L., Wang, Y., & Fan, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21484 · Cited by 7
“Moreover, we examine various training-free reward candidates, including token-level confidence (logits) (Kadavath et al., 2022), predictive entropy (Kuhn et al., 2023), self-certainty (Kang et al., 2025), and self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022; Shafayat et al., 2025).”
Multi-Agent Taint Specification Extraction for Vulnerability DetectionPreprint
Ghebremichael, J., Vasan, S., Ullah, S., Tystahl, G., Adei, D., Kruegel, C., Vigna, G., Enck, W., & Kapravelos, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10865 · Cited by 8
“We incorporate agent-specific aggregation strategies, executing each analysis multiple times and pooling results to produce stable outcomes [40], [41], [42] (see Appendix A.1).”
Project Aletheia: Verifier-Guided Distillation of Backtracking for Small Language Models
Dixit, A., Liang, T., & Telang, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.14290 · Cited by 7
“Conventional reasoning supervision can implicitly teach that “reasoning is monotonic” (Wei et al. 2022), whereas Aletheia supervision teaches a conditional control rule: when a contradiction is detected, pause and revise state .”
InfluentialHow well LLM-based test generation techniques perform with newer LLM versions?
Konstantinou, M., Degiovanni, R., & Papadakis, M. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST) · doi:10.1109/icst69053.2026.00040 · Cited by 3
“…test generation techniques was greatly improved by combining effective prompting strategies (such as Chain of Thought and Self-Consistency) [7], [8] and retrieval augmentation (RAG) [9], with traditional Software Engineering strategies, e.g., code coverage [10] and symbolic execution [11].”
Beyond Entangled Planning: Task-Decoupled Planning for Long-Horizon Agents
Li, Y.-F., Xu, B.-B., Tian, X.-Y., Xu, X.-C., & Shen, H.-W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07577 · Cited by 7
“Under both models, TDP consistently improves Accurate Delivery compared to ReAct and CoT, and it performs on par with or slightly above Plan-and-Act in delivered correctness, with especially clear advantages when the backbone model is DeepSeek-V3.”
InfluentialDynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path GenerationPreprint
Li, Z., Zheng, Z., Chen, W., Zhao, J., Chen, Y., Xu, T., & Chen, E. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.05746 · Cited by 8
“Self-Input Consistency (CoT-SC) (Wang et al., 2022) pio-neered this direction by sampling multiple reasoning paths and applying majority voting to filter out random errors.”
InfluentialModeX: Evaluator-Free Best-of-N Selection for Open-Ended Generation
Choi, H. K., & Li, S. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02535 · Cited by 7
“This paradigm is inherently brittle: due to stochastic sampling, a single unfavorable token choice can trigger hallucinations or error propagation, even when the model’s underlying distribution assigns substantial probability mass to correct or coherent outputs [6, 7].”
InfluentialEvaluating GRPO and DPO for Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMsPreprint
Mohammadi, H., Kozak, T., & Giachanou, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.22631 · Cited by 7
“We evaluated the fine-tuned models using five complementary metrics that capture both accuracy and reasoning faithfulness: (1) Greedy Accuracy [11]: evaluates correctness using deterministic decoding with the most probable token at each step; (2) Self-Consistency [11]: samples multiple reasoning…”
Agent2World: Learning to Generate Symbolic World Models via Adaptive Multi-Agent FeedbackPreprint
Hu, M., Xia, B., Wu, Y., Yu, A., Zou, Y., Chen, Q., Wang, S., Jin, J., Li, K., Jiao, W., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.22336 · Cited by 9
“(viii) Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022) : A multi-sample reasoning method that votes over the results to improve consistency in decision-making.”
Population-Evolve: a Parallel Sampling and Evolutionary Method for LLM Math ReasoningPreprint
Zhang, Y., Duan, Y., Zhang, Z., He, J., & Zheng, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.19081 · Cited by 7
“Furthermore, Wang et al. (2023) demonstrates the significant performance improvements achieved by simply applying majority voting to the answers derived from parallel reasoning.”
InfluentialRubric-Conditioned LLM Grading: Alignment, Uncertainty, and Robustness
Deng, H.-T., Farber, C., Lee, J., & Tang, D. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08843 · Cited by 7
“Our consensus mechanism draws inspiration from Self-Consistency [Wang et al., 2023], which demonstrates that aggregating multiple sampling paths improves reasoning performance.”
Emergent Bias and Fairness in Multi-Agent Decision Systems
Madigan, M., Kamalaruban, P., Moynihan, G., Kempton, T., Sutton, D., & Burrell, S. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.16433 · Cited by 7
“…allows agents to improve based on external feedback, improving on techniques such as self-refinement (Madaan et al. 2023; Welleck et al. 2022; Shinn et al. 2023), chain-of-thought (Wei et al. 2022) and self-consistency (Wang et al. 2022), all of which rely on the agent to improve its own response.”
Nel, L. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.16030 · Cited by 7
“Prior work on LLM calibration has examined confidence elicitation through verbalized probabilities [Tian et al., 2023, Xiong et al., 2024], multiple sampling [Wang et al., 2023], and logit-based approaches [Kadavath et al., 2022].”
Detailed Balance in Large-Language-Model-Driven Agents
Song, Z.-Y., Cao, Q.-H., Luo, M.-X., & Zhu, H. X. (2026) · PRX Intelligence · doi:10.1103/kwx6-clqd · Cited by 6
RE-GRPO: Leveraging hard negative cases through large language model guided self training
Liu, H., & Xiao, L. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.132543 · Cited by 1
Nouri, A., & Hu, M. (2025) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.114589 · Cited by 7
“57–59 Finally, the users confirm the matching to ensure that material extraction is successfully linked to the database’s flows.”
Self-reflection enhances large language models towards substantial academic response
Li, B., & Zhao, C. (2025) · npj Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s44387-025-00045-3 · Cited by 5
“In fact, CoT has many variants and upgraded versions, such as self-consistency CoT 44 , Tree of Thoughts (ToT) 45 , and Meta-CoT 46 .”
Liao, D., Qi, M.-S., Shu, P., Zhang, Z.-N., Lin, Y., Liu, L., & Ma, H.-D. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01300 · Cited by 7
“Google proposed an approach to modify sampling based on the output voting [49], but its on-line nature and latency make it impractical for autonomous driving.”
Toward a Safe Internet of AgentsPreprint
Wibowo, J. A., & Polyzos, G. C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00520 · Cited by 10
Wang, Z., Xiao, W., Shao, M., Hemadri, R. V., Sinanoglu, O., Shafique, M., & Karri, R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.22749 · Cited by 5
“Difficulty estimation in other domains employs: (1) statistical methods analyzing performance patterns [21]; (2) LLM-as-a-judge frameworks [2, 4]; and (3) representation -based methods using hidden embeddings [34].”
DRAFT-RL: Multi-Agent Chain-of-Draft Reasoning for Reinforcement Learning-Enhanced LLMsPreprint
Li, Y., Liu, M., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., & Tan, W. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20468 · Cited by 1
Majority of the Bests: Improving Best-of-N via Bootstrapping
Rakhsha, A., Madan, K., Zhang, T.-Y., Farahmand, A.-M., & Khasahmadi, A. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.18630 · Cited by 7
“Examples include Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), Best-of-N (Lightman et al., 2023), and Weighted Best-of-N (Li et al., 2022).”
InfluentialYu, W.-H., Lin, X.-B., Ni, L., Cheng, J., & Sha, L. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07979 · Cited by 7
“Diverse CoT prompting strategies have been proposed and applied broadly Sahoo et al. [2025], including automatic Zhang et al. [2022], self-consistency Wang et al. [2023], and logical Zhao et al. [2024] CoT.”
Pragmatic Theories Enhance Understanding of Implied Meanings in LLMs
Sato, T., Kawano, S., & Yoshino, K. (2025) · IJCNLP-AACL · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26253 · Cited by 7
BrowseConf: Confidence-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Web AgentsPreprint
Ou, L., Li, K., Yin, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., Wu, X., Ye, R., Qiao, Z., Xie, P., Zhou, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23458 · Cited by 7
“Another black-box approach relies on consistency, where multiple responses are sampled for the same input and their agreement is used as a proxy for confidence (Wang et al., 2023).”
Think Twice: Branch-and-Rethink Reasoning Reward ModelPreprint
Jiao, Y., Zeng, J., Vialard, J. V., Kuchaiev, O., Han, J., & Delalleau, O. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23596 · Cited by 7
“Under the banner of “reasoning LMs,” models externalize intermediate steps – e.g., chain-of-thought, scratchpads, and reflect-revise traces – and allocate more test-time compute to difficult instances (Nye et al., 2021; Shinn et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023).”
Park, C., & Kim, C. (2025) · IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2025.3624762 · Cited by 7
“3) Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting [11], [12] is applied to enable sequential reasoning so that LLMs can accurately classify whether AD is present.”
Tan, Y., He, S.-Z., Liu, K., & Zhao, J. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19176 · Cited by 7
DiSRouter: Distributed Self-Routing for LLM Selections
Zheng, H., Xu, H.-S., Lin, Y., Fan, S., Chen, L., & Yu, K. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19208 · Cited by 7
“We evaluate LLMs in a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT, Wei et al., 2022) manner and use accuracy as the evaluation metric for all these datasets.”
EffiReasonTrans: RL-Optimized Reasoning for Code Translation
Wang, Y., Ou, R., Wang, Y., Liu, M., Chen, J., Shi, E., Liu, X., Ma, Y., & Zheng, Z. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2026.3693795 · Cited by 8
“This ensures that the test cases provide sufficient functional validation, which is crucial for later evaluation.”
Guiding Clinical Reasoning with Large Language Models via Knowledge Seeds
Wu, J., Wu, X., & Yang, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the Thirty-ThirdInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/829 · Cited by 7
Liu, R., Geng, J., Wu, A. J., Sucholutsky, I., Lombrozo, T., & Griffiths, T. L. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21333 · Cited by 6
“By using cases where verbal thinking decreases human performance as a heuristic, we successfully identify three settings where CoT results in large decreases in model performance, leading to implications for choosing when CoT should be deployed.”
Fang, J., Peng, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Yi, X., Zhang, G., Xu, Y., Wu, B., Liu, S., Li, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.07407 · Cited by 6
Self-citationAI4AI at Test-Time: Strong-to-Weak Capability Transfer via HarnessesPreprint
Qian, C., Zhao, W., Yang, L., Wang, H., Qiu, J., Ji, H., Savarese, S., Wang, H., & Heinecke, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12307 · Cited by 7
“Chain-of-thought prompting elicits intermediate reasoning steps from large models (Wei et al., 2022), self-consistency improves reliability by sampling multiple reasoning paths and marginalizing over their answers (Wang et al., 2022), and least-to-most prompting decomposes hard problems into easier…”
Chen, T.-R. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.03436 · Cited by 6
“…of these benchmarks’ published results. b) Multi-call inference and repeated sampling: Self-consistency aggregates multiple sampled reasoning paths, compound AI systems study how performance scales with additional model calls, and Mixture-of-Agents combines outputs from several agents [9–11].”
How Inference Compute Shapes Frontier LLM EvaluationPreprint
McFadyen, J., Jorgensen, O., Coppock, H., Wei, K., & Ududec, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.17930 · Cited by 8
“These protocol choices restrict both serial depth within a trajectory and parallel breadth across independent trajectories (Wang et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2024).”
What makes a harness a harness: necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent harnessPreprint
de Macedo, S. O. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10106 · Cited by 8
“Instruction alignment made models follow requests [31]; chain-of-thought, tree-of-thought, and self-consistency improved deliberation [51, 58, 47]; patterns such as ReAct came to interleave thinking and acting in a loop; and external tools, from function The concept is central in practice, yet the…”
ErrorChain: Error Cascade Detection and Early Truncation in Multi-Step Agents
Chen, F.-Y., Chen, B., Tang, Y.-H., Hu, Z., Zhang, J.-Q., & Zhan, Y. (2026) · 2026 11th International Conference on Electronic Technology and Information Science (ICETIS) · doi:10.1109/icetis70504.2026.11633456 · Cited by 6
“Self-consistency [9] samples diverse reasoning paths but does not intervene during sequential execution.”
The Ringelmann Effect in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Scaling Law for Effective Team SizePreprint
Bertalanič, B., & Fortuna, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.02646 · Cited by 5
“Self-consistency [Wang et al., 2023] is the no-interaction baseline.”
Beyond Consensus: Trace-Level Synthesis in Mixture of Agents
Fadnavis, S., Kanakaraj, P., & Wyss, F. I. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.29116 · Cited by 6
Zhao, S.-Z., Zhang, S.-P., Yang, S., Zhao, W.-Y., Wang, S., & Ji, X.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.25547 · Cited by 6
“…that repeated or structured inference—e.g., chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022; Lightman et al., 2024), multiple-sample self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023; Wan et al., 2025), and verifier-guided selection (Li et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2025)—can improve output quality for high-level,…”
Faithfulness Metrics Don't Measure Faithfulness: A Meta-Evaluation with Ground TruthPreprint
Gur-Arieh, Y., Marasović, A., & Geva, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.25052 · Cited by 6
“Specifically, we self-consistency prompt the model [68] post-unlearning and compare the majority vote answer to the pre-unlearning CoT answer.”
Jack, W., Lehman, N., Maloney, K., & Xu, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.27440 · Cited by 5
“The contradiction with Wang et al. [16] and Guo et al. [9] deserves a careful framing.”
InfluentialContextEcho: A Benchmark for Persona Drift in Long Agentic-Coding SessionsPreprint
Ding, X., Yu, Y., Liu, C., Zhao, B., Chen, L., & Chen, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24279 · Cited by 5
“Chain-of-thought and decomposition prompting (Kojima et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023a; Zhou et al., 2022), which lengthen outputs by construction, provide the natural-prior, short-context-theoretic baseline that our reasoning-tier null refutes.”
Argus: Evidence Assembly for Scalable Deep Research AgentsPreprint
Zhang, Z., Su, L., Chen, Z., Lin, X., Xu, H., Du, S. S., Yang, K., An, B., Bing, L., & Wang, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16217 · Cited by 5
“The current state of the art therefore scales inference-time compute in parallel: K trajectories are sampled independently and then aggregated through majority voting [5], best-of-N selection [6–8], or LLM-based synthesis [9, 10].”
InfluentialSelf-citationA Large Language Model-Enabled Multi-Agent Collaboration Method for Complex Task Solving
Wang, S., Feng, Y., & Fang, X. (2026) · International Symposium on Computer Technology and Information Science (ISCTIS) · doi:10.1109/isctis70043.2026.11572301
“Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly strengthened test-time reasoning through chain-of-thought prompting [1], least-to-most decomposition [2], self-consistency decoding [3], reasoning-action coupling [4], deliberate tree search [5], and tool-augmented inference [6].”
EVOCHAMBER: Test-Time Co-evolution of Multi-Agent System at Individual, Team, and Population Scales
Zhang, Y., Xu, T.-Y., Dai, S.-Y., Shao, Z., Wu, Q.-Y., & Wang, H.-Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.11136 · Cited by 6
“As no-evolution references, we include a stateless single agent (SA) and majority voting (SC, k =5 ) [33] as a compute-matched comparison.”
RADAR: Redundancy-Aware Diffusion for Multi-Agent Communication Structure Generation
Zhang, Z., Zhou, W., Li, J., Fei, H., Wen, J., & Ji, W. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09907 · Cited by 6
“We compare RADAR against three types of baselines: (1) Single Agent Methods including CoT (Wei et al., 2022), ComplexCoT (Fu et al., 2023), SC (Wang et al., 2023); (2) Multi-Agent Systems including MultiPersona (Wang et al., 2024b), LLM-Debate (Du et al., 2023), LLM-Blender (Jiang et al., 2023),…”
LASAR: Latent Adaptive Semantic Aligned Reasoning for Generative Recommendation
Chen, Y.-W., Zhang, F.-W., Chen, Z.-H., Wang, D.-Q., Li, H.-H., Xu, P., Liu, H.-M., Li, S.-L., Pei, X., Zhuang, F.-Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.10207 · Cited by 6
“Subsequently, Kojima et al. [22] discovered that simply prompting “Let’s think step by step” elicits zero-shot reasoning, while subsequent studies [43, 51, 2, 10, 28] extended the boundaries of explicit CoT from angles including multi-sample majority voting, tree/graph-structured search, and…”
Select to Think: Unlocking SLM Potential with Local Sufficiency
Ye, W., Zhang, Y.-Y., An, X.-L., Carle, G., & Ma, Y.-P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.26940 · Cited by 6
“A separate line of work improves reasoning by allocating more inference compute, typically via sampling-and-aggregation (Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022)) or explicit search (Tree of Thoughts (Yao et al., 2023)).”
SinkTrack: Attention Sink based Context Anchoring for Large Language Models
Liu, X., Chen, G.-K., & Wang, W.-G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.10027 · Cited by 6
“…et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Ning et al., 2024), generating multiple candidate outputs with verification (Gou et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024b;a), and using non-linear reasoning structures to organize complex inference paths (Yao et al., 2023; Roy &…”
Understanding Performance Gap Between Parallel and Sequential Sampling in Large Reasoning ModelsPreprint
Gu, X., De, S., Markeeva, L., Veličković, P., & Pascanu, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05868 · Cited by 8
“With the success of reinforcement learning (Schulman et al., 2017; Shao et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2025) in LRMs, this refers to scaling the number of tokens in the reasoning traces, e.g., chains-of-thoughts (Wei et al., 2022).”
InfluentialHalluSAE: Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Models via Sparse Auto-EncodersPreprint
Chen, B., Fan, Z., Wang, K., Leng, Z., Wu, F., Zheng, H., Sun, Y., & Wu, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.16430 · Cited by 6
“As discussed above, this work analyzes hallucination in LLMs from a phase transition perspective and proposes a hallucination detection framework based on this view.”
InfluentialTuan, T. L. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.00555 · Cited by 6
“Current approaches address these requirements through prompt engineering [Wei et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2023], retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) [Lewis et al., 2020, Gao et al., 2024], and fine-tuning [Hu et al., 2022].”
dos Santos, J. G. M., Yang, R., Pereira, R. H., Sousa, A., Faria, B. M., Cardoso, H. L., Duarte, J., Reis, J. L., Reis, L. P., Pimenta, P., et al. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16105069 · Cited by 6
“The contrast in outcomes reinforces the importance of ontological guidance for effective GraphRAG.”
Confident and Wrong: Silent Semantic Failures in Coding AgentsPreprint
Mehta, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.25764 · Cited by 8
“Variance under repetition is documented for reasoning and QA (Wang et al., 2023; Elazar et al., 2021; Mehta, 2026); self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) exploits it via voting but assumes independent samples, which breaks for path-dependent trajectories.”
EvoIdeator: Evolving Scientific Ideas through Checklist-Grounded Reinforcement Learning
Sauter, A., Zhao, Y.-Y., Urbani, J., Hu, W.-X., Meng, Z.-Q., Zhou, L., Yan, X.-H., & Lyu, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21728 · Cited by 9
Graph of States: Solving Abductive Tasks with Large Language Models
Luo, Y., Gao, R., Teng, L., Wen, X.-D., Jiang, J., Zhang, Q.-L., Sun, Y.-Q., Zhang, S.-L., Feng, J., Liu, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21250 · Cited by 6
Semantic Invariance in Agentic AI
de Zarzà, I., de Curtò, J., Cabot, J., Manzoni, P., & Calafate, C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.13173 · Cited by 6
“Recent work has examined chain-of-thought reasoning consistency [36,37].”
Boosting MLLM Spatial Reasoning with Geometrically Referenced 3D Scene Representations
Yuan, J., Kumar, G. V., & Wang, B.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08592 · Cited by 6
Enhancing Web Agents with a Hierarchical Memory TreePreprint
Tan, Y.-T., Gao, Z.-Q., & Wu, X.-X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.07024 · Cited by 6
“Similarly, decomposition-based prompting strategies guide models to solve problems via intermediate steps [35], [36], building upon the foundations of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting [37] and Self-Consistency [38].”
$\nabla$-Reasoner: LLM Reasoning via Test-Time Gradient Descent in Latent SpacePreprint
Wang, P., Cai, R., Wang, Z., Mei, H., Liu, Q., Li, P., & Wang, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.04948 · Cited by 3
“For instance, Best-of-N (BoN) (Stiennon et al., 2020; Nakano et al., 2021) and Self-consistency (SC-CoT) Wang et al. (2022) repeatedly sample multiple chains and select the best one using heuristics such as predefined rewards or the consistency.”
ODAR: Principled Adaptive Routing for LLM Reasoning via Active InferencePreprint
Ma, S., Gao, B., Jia, X., Qin, S., Li, T., Ma, K., Jia, X., Ren, W., & Liu, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.23681 · Cited by 7
“…high reliability on hard problems primarily through test-time compute scaling, utilizing methods such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) deliberation [Wei et al., 2022], multi-sample aggregation via Self-Consistency [Wang et al., 2022] or Best-of-N [Aminian et al., 2025], and verifier-based…”
InfluentialSeeing Farther and Smarter: Value-Guided Multi-Path Reflection for VLM Policy Optimization
Yang, Y.-T., Gao, S.-Y., Bu, Q., Chen, L., & Metaxas, D. N. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · doi:10.1109/icra57385.2026.11695749 · Cited by 6
“In order to aggregate them and output a final action, a simple solution is to leverage some sample method after action generation, like majority voting [16] Fig.”
When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Behavioral Consistency as an Uncertainty Signal for LLM Agents
Mehta, A. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11619 · Cited by 6
“(2023) show that majority voting over sampled reasoning chains improves accuracy; we extend this from single-turn CoT to multi-step agentic settings and additionally study consistency as a diagnostic signal, not just an ensembling strategy (Section 4.4).”
InfluentialAligning Tree-Search Policies with Fixed Token Budgets in Test-Time Scaling of LLMs
Miyamoto, S., Oba, D., & Okazaki, N. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.09574 · Cited by 6
“Prior work broadly falls into (i) parallel scaling, which samples multiple candidates and aggregates them (Wang et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2024; Snell et al., 2024; Lightman et al., 2024), (ii) sequential scaling, which iteratively refines a trajectory conditioned on intermediate states (Madaan et…”
Small Agent Group is the Future of Digital Health
Meng, Y.-Q., Tang, L.-X., Zhang, D.-Z., Brens, R., Romero, E. J., Guo, N., ElKefi, S., & Xi, Z.-H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08013 · Cited by 6
“(vi) Consistency , which quantifies epistemic stability across stochastic inference settings, measuring whether repeated generations under different sampling conditions converge to clinically equivalent conclusions rather than contradictory outcomes (Savage et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023).”
Seo, S.-H., Lim, S., Noh, S., Kim, H., & Kang, H. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04326 · Cited by 6
“To complement these costs, reinforcement learning fine-tuning has been proposed at the training stage (Shao et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2025), while reasoning-augmentation meth-ods such as Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022), Tree-of-Thoughts (Yao et al., 2023), and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023b…”
InfluentialXu, Z., Xu, Z., Zhang, R., Zhu, C., Yu, S., Li, B., Zhang, Q., Ding, W., Yu, C., & Wang, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04634 · Cited by 9
“While prior work attains width-like gains through sampling-based aggregation, such as best-of-N (Gao et al., 2023) and self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), these methods typically improve reliability by repeatedly sampling solutions for the same task.”
SCALE: Self-uncertainty Conditioned Adaptive Looking and Execution for Vision-Language-Action ModelsPreprint
Choi, H., Ahn, D., Lee, Y., Kang, T., Cho, S., & Choi, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04208 · Cited by 2
“Allocating additional compute at inference time has proven effective in LLMs for reasoning and code generation (Snell et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2023), motivating recent extensions to VLAs through generate-and-verify strategies (Nakamoto et al., 2024; Kwok et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025).”
Fodeh, S., Ma, L.-H., Puthiaraju, G., Talakokkul, S., Khan, A., Hagaman, A., Lowe, S. R., & Roundtree, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00025 · Cited by 6
“This module is an intra-generation audit rather than an iterative self-refinement procedure.”
Think Dense, Not Long: Dynamic Decoupled Conditional Advantage for Efficient ReasoningPreprint
Peng, K., Ouyang, Y., Liu, X., Tian, Z., Han, R., Yuan, Y., & Ding, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02099 · Cited by 6
“By employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting/verification (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023) and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Re-wards (RLVR), these models have achieved unprecedented success in complex mathematical and logical domains.”
Structure Enables Effective Self-Localization of Errors in LLMsPreprint
Samanta, A., Magesh, A., Jain, A., Asadi, K., Yu, Y., Jiang, D., Vidolov, B., Hassani, K., Sajda, P., Bhandari, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02416 · Cited by 4
On the Power of (Approximate) Reward Models for Inference-Time Scaling
Zhu, Y.-H., & Lu, Y.-P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01381 · Cited by 6
Explainable and Interactive LLMs-Augmented Depression Detection in Social Media
Qin, W., Chen, Z., Yang, X., Wang, L., Lan, Y., Ren, W., & Hong, R. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2025.3591755 · Cited by 9
“Recent works [31], [32], [33] have aimed to improve CoT prompting in various aspects, such as prompt format [34], prompt selection [35], prompt ensemble [36], and problem decomposition [37].”
Latent Chain-of-Thought as Planning: Decoupling Reasoning from VerbalizationPreprint
Wang, J.-C., Peng, H., Wang, Z.-Y., Liu, C.-Y., & Wu, G.-L. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21358 · Cited by 6
Iterative Refinement Improves Compositional Image GenerationPreprint
Jaiswal, S., Prabhudesai, M., Bhardwaj, N., Qin, Z., Zadeh, A., Li, C., Fragkiadaki, K., & Pathak, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15286 · Cited by 9
“Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has been shown to elicit multi-step reasoning and improve performance on complex language tasks [27, 30, 36].”
Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation
Khalifa, M., Logeswaran, L., Kim, J., Sohn, S., Zhang, Y.-X., Lee, M., Peng, H., Wang, L., & Lee, H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.14691 · Cited by 6
“We evaluate both parallel scaling via self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2024b), where we sample multiple independent judgments with temperature T = 1 .”
FantasyVLN: Unified Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Vision-Language Navigation
Zuo, J., Mu, L.-Z., Jiang, F., Ma, C.-C., Xu, M., & Qi, Y. (2026) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.13976 · Cited by 6
“Subsequent variants, such as Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) and Least-to-Most Prompting (Zhou et al., 2023), further enhance reasoning robustness and compositionality.”
Hasan, K. S. A., Raiyan, S. R., Alvee, H. M., & Sadik, M. W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04505 · Cited by 5
“This intermediate step reduces complicated significant circuit problems into smaller, multi-step problems and enhances the circuit’s electrical logicality (Wang et al., 2023) before any code is generated.”
LELA: an LLM-based Entity Linking Approach with Zero-Shot Domain Adaptation
Haffoudhi, S., Suchanek, F. M., & Holzenberger, N. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.05192 · Cited by 6
“We use self-consistency [61], sampling different candidate selection reasoning paths, with majority voting, to determine the final candidate Implementation.”
Qiu, X., Jia, H., Zeng, Z., Shen, S., Meng, C., Yang, Y., & Zhu, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.01483 · Cited by 7
“Alternatively, training only a generator (with majority voting for selection) or only a verifier (using a base model for generation) yields limited performance improvements compared to training both components [4, 33, 37].”
Geometry of Reason: Spectral Signatures of Valid Mathematical ReasoningPreprint
Noël, V. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.00791 · Cited by 5
Yu, C.-H., & Masum, M. (2026) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering13010120 · Cited by 10
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