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 601–700 of 1,205
Jeong, S., Choi, Y. H., Kim, J. W., & Jang, B. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3716053 · Cited by 7
“Consistency-based factuality approaches, including self-consistency [18] and re-asking [19], evaluate factual correctness by measuring the stability of model outputs rather than relying solely on external grounding.”
Zhang, Y., Qiu, Q., Liu, X., Yu, X., Fu, D., Liu, X., wang, Z., Lin, H., Chen, Y., Yi, L., et al. (2026) · Journal of Optical Communications and Networking · doi:10.1364/jocn.576017 · Cited by 10
“Self-consistency leverages the generation of multiple reasoning paths and selects the most consistent answer [91].”
Persona-aware and Explainable Bikeability Assessment: A Vision-Language Model ApproachPreprint
Dai, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, C., Zhou, K., Qian, Y., Xu, S., & Yan, X. “. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03534 · Cited by 4
“These models advance urban analysis through CoT reasoning (Wei et al., 2022; Kong et al., 2024) and multi-granularity instruction tuning (Liu et al., 2024; Deng et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2021; Chung et al., 2024), showing promise in navigation (Wang et al., 2025b; Wu et al.,…”
Chain-of-thought driven dynamic prompting and computation method
Che, X., Chu, M. H. S., Chen, Y., Gu, H., & Li, Q. (2025) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.114204 · Cited by 4
Beyond the Last Frame: Process-aware Evaluation for Generative Video Reasoning
Yifan, L. I., Gu, Y., Min, Y., Liu, Z., Du, Y., Zhou, K., Yang, M., Zhao, X., & Qiu, M. (2026) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.934 · Cited by 12
“Pass @ k is a widely used metric for evaluating language models, with recent studies indicating that performance can be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of samples k (Chen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023).”
Chen, Z., Ji, Z., Mao, Q., Wu, H., Song, J., Cheng, J., Qin, B., Li, Z., Li, J., Sun, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.23213 · Cited by 7
“…the gradient of Equation A.5 to zero, we can obtain the closed-form solution for { Π ( j ′ ) } Jj ′ =1 in Equation A.7 shown below. where Ψ( y ( i,j ; j ′ ) ) = [ ϕ l · I ( y = n ] , and I ( · ) is an indicator function that takes the value 1 when the internal declaration is true, and 0 otherwise.”
jain, N., Suh, H., Adeyinka, S., Roseman, L., & Allsop, A. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20352 · Cited by 5
Trust-Region Adaptive Policy OptimizationPreprint
Su, M., Guan, J., Gu, Y., Huang, M., & Wang, H. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.17636 · Cited by 12
“We evaluate pass@k, the success rate over k independent rollouts, to better estimate the upper bound of model capability (Snell et al., 2024), as recent studies show that multiple generation attempts reveal reasoning potential more accurately than few rollouts (Yue et al., 2025a; Wang et al., 2022).”
Think in Parallel, Answer as One: Logit Averaging for Open-Ended ReasoningPreprint
Wang, H., Du, C., Kawaguchi, K., & Pang, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02874 · Cited by 4
“…at the solution level , either with reward-guided Best-of-N search (Sun et al., 2024) or guidance-free voting such as rule-based Majority Voting (Wang et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023), with variants that adapt the sample count or filter candidates (Aggarwal et al., 2023; Xue et al., 2023; Huang…”
InfluentialComprehensive Survey on Prompts Generating via Knowledge-Guided Chain-of-Thought
Jia, Z., Geng, S., Zhao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2025) · International Journal of Crowd Science · doi:10.26599/ijcs.2024.9100038 · Cited by 5
Yang, Q., Qu, F.-Y., Guo, T., Liu, Y., & Wen, Y. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00740 · Cited by 5
“Recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 (Achiam et al. 2023) have unlocked unprece-* dented capabilities in autonomous reasoning and planning (Wei et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2023; Yao et al. 2023b; Zhao et al. 2025).”
ThreadWeaver: Adaptive Threading for Efficient Parallel Reasoning in Language Models
Lian, L., Wang, S., Juefei-Xu, F., Fu, T.-J., Li, X., Yala, A., Darrell, T., Suhr, A., Tian, Y., & Lin, X. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.07843 · Cited by 5
“APR (Pan et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025b; Zheng et al., 2025) differs from inter-trajectory parallelism such as self-consistency and majority vote (Wang et al., 2023), where multiple complete chains are sampled independently and combined only at the end.”
InfluentialHUMORCHAIN: Theory-Guided Multi-Stage Reasoning for Interpretable Multimodal Humor Generation
Zhang, J., Luo, S., Zhang, R., & Su, Q. (2025) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21732 · Cited by 5
“Extensive experiments on the Meme-Image-No-Text, Oogiri-GO [47], and OxfordTVG-HIC [20] datasets show that HUMORCHAIN substantially outperforms existing baselines in human humor preference, Elo/BT scores, and semantic diversity.”
Goal-Directed Search Outperforms Goal-Agnostic Memory Compression in Long-Context Memory TasksPreprint
Zheng, Y., McKee, K. L., Miconi, T., Bugaud, Z., van Gelderen, M., & McCaleb, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21726 · Cited by 4
“For LLMs, test-time search improves reasoning and problem solving: Self-Consistency searches over multiple chains-of-thought (Wang et al., 2023); Tree-of-Thoughts explores/prunes thought trees (Yao, D. Yu, et al., 2023); and DeepSWE selects from sampled agentic coding trajectories for higher…”
When to Think and When to Look: Uncertainty-Guided Lookback
Bi, J., Bellos, F., Guo, J.-J., Li, Y., Huang, C., Tang, Y. Y., Song, L., Liang, S., Zhang, Z., Corso, J. J., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15613 · Cited by 5
“This follows evidence that sampling diverse answers and marginalizing across them improves multi-step reasoning [44] and aligns with recent work on visual reasoning and CoT prompting [26, 58].”
MedDCR: Learning to Design Agentic Workflows for Medical Coding
Zheng, J., Nassar, I., Vu, T., Zhong, X., Lin, Y., Liu, T.-L., Duong, L., & Li, Y.-F. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.13361 · Cited by 5
“Multi-agent topologies vary from parallel setups for exploration (Wang et al., 2023a) to serial pipelines with reflective refinement (Madaan et al., 2023), and even contrastive-style structures that improve reliability (Du et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2024).”
Guda, B., Francis, L., Ashungafac, G. Z., Joe-Wong, C., & Busogi, M. (2025) · IJCNLP-AACL · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21709 · Cited by 5
“However, these prior methods do not achieve the consistency of majority voting, a technique well-established for mitigating selection bias (Zong et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024).”
Enhancing the Outcome Reward-based RL Training of MLLMs with Self-Consistency Sampling
Wang, J., Xu, W.-Y., Yang, A.-J., Zhou, W., Lu, L.-W., Li, H.-Q., Wang, X.-H., & Zhu, J.-G. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.10648 · Cited by 5
“As shown in Figure 1, building on recent advances in consistency-based reasoning [46, 30, 41], SCS first generates an initial trajectory and then explores its neighboring trajectories through two mechanisms.”
Self-citationLast Layer Logits to Logic: Empowering LLMs with Logic-Consistent Structured Knowledge Reasoning
Li, S.-Z., Liu, Z., Gong, Z., Guo, X.-K., Bo, Z.-P., Gui, Z.-K., Liang, L., Chen, H.-J., & Zhang, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07910 · Cited by 5
“Slot Filling tasks assess the model’s capacity to extract and fill missing information in structured knowledge representations, for instance, given Egelsee [SEP] country , the model should identify the answer as Switzerland, Austria, Germany .”
Liu, R., Chen, X., Zhang, J.-Y., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., & Yang, B. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.06778 · Cited by 5
“5M (Li et al. 2025) dataset as foundational data sources, which are generated from publicly available web tables to eliminate privacy risks associated with real enterprise data.”
Self-Evaluating LLMs for Multi-Step Tasks: Stepwise Confidence Estimation for Failure DetectionPreprint
Mavi, V., Jaroria, S., & Sun, W. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07364 · Cited by 5
CGES: Confidence-Guided Early Stopping for Efficient and Accurate Self-ConsistencyPreprint
Aghazadeh, E., Ghasemi, A., Beyhaghi, H., & Pishro-Nik, H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02603 · Cited by 5
“Among the most widely used methods, self-consistency (SC) [Wang et al., 2023] aggregates outputs by majority vote, leveraging the intuition that the most frequent answer across diverse generations is likely to be correct.”
InfluentialPersonalized Decision Modeling: Utility Optimization or Textualized-Symbolic Reasoning
Zhao, Y.-B., Zhao, Y., Du, H.-R., & Yang, H. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02194 · Cited by 5
Re-FORC: Adaptive Reward Prediction for Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Zabounidis, R., Golatkar, A., Kleinman, M., Achille, A., Xia, W., & Soatto, S. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.02130 · Cited by 5
“Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023b) spawned compute-aware variants that halt when votes converge (Li et al., 2024; Liu & Wang, 2025) or use confidence-weighted aggregation (Taubenfeld et al., 2025).”
Assessing LLM Reasoning Steps via Principal Knowledge Grounding
Hwang, H., Cho, Y., Yoon, C., Park, Y., Song, M., Lee, K., Kim, G., & Kang, J. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1085 · Cited by 2
“Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) improves reliability by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer through majority voting.”
Liao, H.-C., Rao, B., Sun, H., Wang, C.-Y., Chang, Q., Li, S., Xu, C.-Z., & Li, Z.-N. (2025) · IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems (Print) · doi:10.1109/tits.2025.3597411 · Cited by 5
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting further enhances reasoning by encouraging step-by-step thinking [28], [29], simulating human-like decision processes [30], [31].”
Generalizing Test-time Compute-optimal Scaling as an Optimizable GraphPreprint
Wang, F., Chen, J., Yang, S., Bao, R., Zhao, T., Zhang, Z., Tang, X., Liu, H., He, Q., & Wang, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.00086 · Cited by 5
LoRA-DA: Data-Aware Initialization for Low-Rank Adaptation via Asymptotic Analysis
Zhang, Q.-Y., Chu, C., Peng, T., Li, Q., Luo, X., Jiang, Z., & Huang, S.-L. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24561 · Cited by 5
“…et al., 2022), code reasoning and synthesis (Li et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021), commonsense reasoning (Toroghi et al., 2025), mathematical problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023a; Hendrycks et al., 2021), and multimodal understanding with vision–language modeling (Li et al., 2023;…”
Satyadharma, S., Sheikholeslami, F., Kaul, S., Batur, A., & Khan, S. A. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-industry.63 · Cited by 5
“On the other hand, zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) approaches have helped in simpler tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022), but they lack the granularity to handle the thousands of heterogeneous relationships between PCs and SAs, which are needed to…”
Su, G., Wang, H., Wang, J., Zhang, W., Zhang, Y., & Pei, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.21131 · Cited by 8
“Works [53, 215] note that LLMs can latch onto spurious or superficial correlations in graph benchmarks, indicating they may be memorizing in-distribution patterns rather than genuinely reasoning.”
Task Planning and Decision-Making Methods for Intelligent Agents Based on Large Language Models
Li, X. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Information Processing (AIIIP) · doi:10.1145/3778534.3778661 · Cited by 4
“Self-Consistency [ 15 ] mitigates this by sampling multiple reasoning chains and selecting the most consistent, trading speed for reliability.”
Systematic Evaluation of Uncertainty Estimation Methods in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Hobelsberger, C., Winner, T., Nawroth, A., Mitevski, O., & Haensch, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20460 · Cited by 5
“Sample consistency directly captures whether the model’s knowledge and reasoning are robust for a given query (Wang et al., 2022).”
PlanU: Large Language Model Reasoning through Planning under Uncertainty
Deng, Z., Deng, M., Liang, C.-J., Gao, Z., Ma, C., Lin, C., Zhang, H.-P., Mei, S., Shen, S.-Q., & Wang, C. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.52202/085713-4775 · Cited by 5
“Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various domains, such as reasoning and coding [1, 2, 3].”
InfluentialCamposampiero, G., Hersche, M., Wattenhofer, R., Sebastian, A., & Rahimi, A. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17496 · Cited by 5
“• Self-consistency [25, 26], which consists in querying the model multiple times ( n = 7 times), sampling the next token from the distribution with a non-zero soft-max temperature.”
LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning
Ye, Y., Huang, Z., Xiao, Y., Chern, E., Xia, S., & Liu, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03387 · Cited by 4
“…by DeepSeek-R1; and NuminaMath-100k , a randomly selected 100k subset of NuminaMath-CoT, featuring mathematical problems ranging from Chinese high school exercises to international mathematics olympiad competitions, with each solution following a Chain of Thought (CoT) format (Wei et al., 2022).”
Aggarwal, P., Parno, B., & Welleck, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06176 · Cited by 4
Oami, T., Okada, Y., Maeda, K., & Nakada, T.-A. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1799623 · Cited by 4
“In addition to the original prompt, we tested the performance of modified prompts using the following two prompt engineering strategies: Chain-of-thought (CoT): the original prompt preceded by the instruction phrase “Let’s think step by step”, encouraging the model to reason through extraction tasks (Supplementary Appe…”
Whom Do AI Agents Serve? Role-Induced Sponsorship Bias in Decision Models and Generative LLMsPreprint
Wadi, D., & Ma, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.17989 · Cited by 2
“…LLM token sampling is stochastic, we conducted 500 independent, zero-shot replications per cell using a Monte Carlo approach (Robert et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2022; Wadi and Fredette, 2025; Holtzman et al., 2019), yielding N = 2 , 000 observations for the main experiment (see Appendix B for…”
TRACE: A Self-Evolving Skill Bank for Consistent, Limit-Aware LLM AgentsPreprint
Wu, W., Zhang, M., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Shao, K., & Luan, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.22793 · Cited by 3
“Modern agents combine chain-of-thought reasoning [Wei et al. , 2022; Wang et al. , 2023; Zhan et al. , 2026] with tool use and action [Yao et al. , 2023], enabling recent reasoning-centric models [Yan et al. , 2025; Zhang et al. , 2026] to tackle demanding reasoning and agentic benchmarks [Hu et…”
Self-citationZheng, Z.-H., Li, B.-C., Yao, J.-Y., & Long, J.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.19558 · Cited by 4
“For the generative models we compare five inference-time confidence signals that require no additional training, spanning whole-output probabilities, entity-restricted probabilities, and self-consistency vote share over sampled decodes [19], [20].”
Phantom Gains: Auditing Self-Improvement Against a Measured Null
Xu, C., Yan, N., Chen, L.-M., & Kechadi, M.-T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.20290 · Cited by 4
“TTRL (Zuo et al., 2025) discards labels entirely, treating a majority vote over the model’s own samples as a reward, which is self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023a) used as a training rather than an inference-time signal, and label-free variants have followed (Zhou et al., 2026; Moradi et al., 2025;…”
MAE I Trust Myself? Self-Evaluating VLA Action Generation with Markov Attention EntropyPreprint
Aniri, Yilin, C., Bi, J., Jin, Z., Wang, Y., Bian, X., Volker Tresp, C., Shen, F., Chua, T.-S., & Ma, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.16697 · Cited by 2
“Black-box methods rely on output statistics, such as multi-sample disagreement or self-uncertainty scores, to select actions without external supervision [2, 21, 42].”
LLMs Are Not Good Strategists, Yet Memory-Enhanced Agency Boosts ReasoningPreprint
Wu, Y., & Hu, Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12626 · Cited by 4
Zúñiga, N. V. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.10986 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency samples a model repeatedly and aggregates [Wang et al., 2022], on reasoning traces the model produced itself [Wei et al., 2022]; iterated refinement asks a model to revise its own answer against its own critique [Madaan et al., 2023]; agentic loops return a model’s output to its…”
Zhang, Y., & Li, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.22962 · Cited by 8
“Wang et al. (2023) show that majority-vote aggregation over multiple reasoning chains improves reasoning accuracy because correct answers are more stable across samples than hallucinated ones.”
LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning
Liu, N. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.10139 · Cited by 4
KV-PRM: Efficient Process Reward Modeling via KV-Cache Transfer for Multi-Agent Test-Time ScalingPreprint
Kuang, P., Jin, H., Han, X., Wang, Y., Yuan, X., Yu, Y., Xu, K., & Wang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.09153 · Cited by 4
“PRM scores guide test-time search (TTS), such as beam search, MCTS [13], or weighted majority voting [14], to select high-quality trajectories [2].”
Mitigating Factual Hallucination in Large Reasoning Models via Mixed-Mode Advantage Regularization
Wang, K.-S., Zheng, T., Cui, X.-H., Chen, R.-B., Xiong, T., & Huang, H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.05861 · Cited by 4
“This paradigm is especially effective for mathematics, coding, and symbolic reasoning, where intermediate steps help decompose problems, verify partial results, and derive final answers [Wei et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2022, Zheng et al., 2023, Gao et al., 2023].”
Is One Layer Enough? Training A Single Transformer Layer Can Match Full-Parameter RL Training
Zhang, Z., Hu, R., Glentis, A., Li, D.-W., Yau, C.-Y., Lin, H., & Hong, M.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01232 · Cited by 4
“To isolate the role of structural diversity from sampling randomness, we compare against self-consistency–style voting [Wang et al., 2023], which aggregates 7 independent samples from the same full-parameter model; this reaches only 31 .”
He, H.-Y., Liu, J.-M., & Sanchez, V. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01511 · Cited by 4
“A series of follow-up studies further improve CoT through self-consistency, automatic demonstration construction, planning-based prompting, contrastive reasoning, and iterative re-reading [4, 36, 37, 41, 44].”
CoLT: Teaching Multi-Modal Models to Think with Chain of Latent Thoughts
Hu, L., Qin, S.-Q., Liao, Z.-Q., Guo, Q., Wang, L., Feng, W., & Liu, Y. (2026) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.31986 · Cited by 4
“Third, errors made in early reasoning steps can propagate and compound through subsequent steps, a phenomenon that is particularly problematic in long reasoning chains [22,47].”
Memory Reward Inflation in Self-Improving LLM AgentsPreprint
Asadolahi, M., Amini, A., Talebi, S., Farhadi, A., & Zamanifar, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00017 · Cited by 5
“Self-consistency, LLM-as-a-judge methods, self-refinement, and process-reward-style judging use model-generated judgments as label-free or weakly supervised signals [3, 7, 19, 20].”
Kotte, V. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.29054 · Cited by 7
“For any distribution-free selective predictor with E [ R | emit] ≤ α holding with probability ≥ 1 − δ : where µ = E [ R ] is the base risk.”
When are likely answers right? On Sequence Probability and Correctness in LLMs
Zenn, J., & Geiping, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.27359 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency (SC) aggregates multiple samples via majority voting (using uniform or probability weighting) on the extracted answers (Wang et al., 2023).”
Sakana Fugu Technical ReportPreprint
Tang, Y., Cetin, E., Xu, J., Sun, Q., Nielsen, S., Richard, V., Goda, H., Tymchenko, I., Nguyen, N., Lee, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.21228 · Cited by 9
“A first line of work shapes the model’s reasoning through prompting and decoding strategies, including chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), and structured search over reasoning paths such as Tree of Thoughts (Yao et al., 2023).”
Latent Thought Flow: Efficient Latent Reasoning in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Zou, X., Huang, J., Li, J.-S., & Zhou, P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.16222 · Cited by 4
“A cornerstone of this success is the use of intermediate reasoning processes, where frameworks like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [11, 12], Self-Consistency [13], and Tree-of-Thoughts [14] decompose intricate problems into sequential rationales.”
AlloSpatial: Agentic Harness Framework for Spatial Reasoning in Foundation Models
Ruan, S.-W., Wang, B., Wu, Z.-Y., Zhu, Q.-H., Zhang, Y.-X., Li, J., Wang, Y.-B., & Wei, X.-X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.08952 · Cited by 4
“…World2Mind output M can induce two failure modes: 1) modality lock-in , where the model prematurely commits to either visual appearance or AST text and ignores conflicting evidence [37, 22]; and 2) over-trust in tool results , where incomplete or noisy reconstructions are treated as ground truth.”
Coarse-to-Control: Action-Token Planning for Vision-Language-Action Models
Wu, J.-H., Zhang, S.-D., Liu, Y.-C., Yu, X.-P., Li, S.-X., Wang, S., Zhao, H., Huo, J., Gao, Y., Gong, J.-J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.07107 · Cited by 4
“Prior work suggests that chain-of-thought is effective not merely because it produces longer outputs, but because it introduces explicit intermediate states that transform difficult one-shot prediction into structured sequential computation [35, 36, 37].”
Entity Binding Failures in Speech LLM Reasoning: Diagnosis and Chain-of-Thought Intervention
Hsu, M.-H., Tian, X.-H., Zhang, J., & Wu, Z.-Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.04474 · Cited by 4
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting fundamentally enhances LLM reasoning by externalizing intermediate deductive steps [27, 28, 29, 30, 31].”
Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient CasesPreprint
Liang, C., Qiu, P., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Wu, C., & Xie, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05112 · Cited by 3
“Following the self-consistency decoding strategy [28], we run each case N times independently under identical settings (here N = 5), sampling a diverse set of trajectories rather than committing to a single greedy decode.”
ATLAS: Agentic Test-time Learning-to-Allocate ScalingPreprint
Qin, P., Cao, Q., & Xie, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.01667 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency marginalizes over diverse reasoning paths [52]; coverage scales log-linearly with the sample count [3]; and Universal Self-Consistency uses the LLM itself to select among candidates for free-form tasks [6].”
ReasonOps: Operator Segmentation for LLM Reasoning TracesPreprint
Lee, D., Queen, O., & Zou, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.29192 · Cited by 6
“Other work has explored test time scaling techniques for self-verification, including SelfCheck [23] and others [30, 31, 32].”
Self-Consistency via Marginal SharpeningPreprint
Arzhantsev, A. P., Sakhi, O., & Chopin, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28142 · Cited by 6
“Self-consistency uses repeated sampling to estimate answer-level support: sample multiple reasoning paths, extract their final answers, and return the answer with the largest vote count [12].”
InfluentialNeuro-Symbolic Verification of LLM Outputs for Data-Sensitive Domains (extended preprint)
Sigloch, P., & Benzmüller, C. (2026) · Deutsche Jahrestagung für Künstliche Intelligenz · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.26942 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency Self-consistency methods [37] sample multiple responses and measure agreement, while retrieval-augmented verification [13] cross-references outputs against external knowledge bases.”
Intelligence as Managed Autonomy: Failure, Escalation, and Governance for Agentic AI Systems
Ramaswamy, S. (2026) · Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems · doi:10.1007/s10846-026-02413-w · Cited by 3
“The introduction of chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting [13] and self-consistency mechanisms [14] demonstrated that articulating intermediate steps improves reasoning.”
AgentFugue: Agent Scaling for Long-Horizon Tasks through Collective Reasoning
Hu, Y., Qian, H.-J., Wang, S., Liu, J., Zhao, T., Li, X.-X., Liu, Z.-Z., & Dou, Z.-C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24486 · Cited by 4
“Without communication, multiple agents largely reduce to isolated searches whose results must be merged after the fact [54, 1, 22, 18]; with unrestricted communication, useful signals can be overwhelmed by raw trajectory noise [20], and the diversity of exploration may quickly collapse.”
HyperGuide: Hyperbolic Guidance for Efficient Multi-Step Reasoning in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Liu, Y., Xu, H., He, Y., Patil, S. R., Xu, M., & Ma, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24140 · Cited by 2
Zhou, Y., Zhou, Y., Xu, A., Vosoughi, S., Joty, S., & Gui, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20745 · Cited by 4
“(iii) Experiments on ProcessBench and Hard2Verify show that VerifySteer outperforms prompt optimization, activation steering (Rimsky et al., 2024), and self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) baselines.”
Large Language Models for Operations Research: A Comprehensive Survey
Xiu, X.-C., Li, J.-H., Fan, J., & Liu, W.-Q. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20849 · Cited by 4
“Large Language Models (LLMs), leveraging their massive parameter scales and high-quality training data, have demonstrated strong generalization capabilities across multiple tasks, marking an important step toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) [2, 3].”
TextReg: Mitigating Prompt Distributional Overfitting via Regularized Text-Space OptimizationPreprint
傅卢成, Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Jin, Y., Jin, H., Prakash, B. A., & Wang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21318 · Cited by 4
“Reasoning-oriented prompting techniques such as CoT [15], self-consistency [16], ReAct [17], PoT [18], and ToT [19] improve LLM reasoning by structuring the inference process.”
CAPS: Cascaded Adaptive Pairwise Selection for Efficient Parallel ReasoningPreprint
Lin, F., Xing, S., Li, P., Yang, S., Ge, Q., Yamada, K., Zhang, Z., Zhang, H., & Tu, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.15513 · Cited by 4
“…thought through reflection or revision [53, 27, 32] and parallel approaches that sample multiple independent chains and aggregate their answers [47, 44, 3, 36]; Self-Consistency [5, 44] and Best-of-N sampling with learned reward models [23, 7] are the canonical aggregation primitives, and the…”
InfluentialTest-Time Learning with an Evolving LibraryPreprint
Xu, W., Sordoni, A., Singh, C., Gero, Z., Galley, M., Yuan, X., & Gao, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14477 · Cited by 4
“For reasoning tasks, S Φ (˜ y t | x t ) is obtained by majority voting [1] and LLM-as-a-Judge [38] to break tie.”
InfluentialGeometry Guided Self-Consistency for Physical AIPreprint
Dai, Y., Chen, Z., Yang, L., & Netravali, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08638 · Cited by 2
“A natural response to sampling stochasticity is test-time scaling: draw multiple candidates and select (e.g., self-consistency [Wang et al., 2023]), as studied extensively in language models [Wang et al., 2023, Cobbe et al., 2021, Lightman et al., 2023].”
CIVeX: Causal Intervention Verification for Language Agents
Rovai, F. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09168 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) and chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022) are widely used to improve answer quality.”
Reliable Chain-of-Thought via Prefix ConsistencyPreprint
Iwase, N., Ichihara, Y., Quamar, M. A., & Komiyama, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.07654 · Cited by 3
“…w ( s i ) = exp( s i /T ) / j exp( s j /T ) (over samples) with tunable temperature T : Source ℓ i Raw confidence s i Response probability [Wang et al., 2023b] per-tokenlog-probabilities of y i Length-normalized geometric mean of token probabilities, exp (cid:0) 1 | y i | t log P t…”
InfluentialBeyond Reasoning: Reinforcement Learning Unlocks Parametric Knowledge in LLMs
Yang, W.-L., Zang, H., Zhang, J.-W., Shi, W.-J., Su, D., Wang, J.-G., Cheng, X.-Q., & Sun, F. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.07153 · Cited by 4
Two Calls, Two Moments, and the Vote-Accuracy Curve of Repeated LLM InferencePreprint
Liu, Y. D. Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.03379 · Cited by 5
“Self-consistency samples multiple reasoning paths before aggregating final answers [24]; pass@ k evaluation measures success across repeated code-generation attempts [6]; and inference-scaling work studies repeated candidate generation as a performance axis [5].”
RAG over Thinking Traces Can Improve Reasoning Tasks
Arabzadeh, N., Ma, W., Min, S., & Zaharia, M. A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.03344 · Cited by 4
“The key idea is to view trajectory retrieval as a representation problem, where the same trace can be transformed into different retrieval-friendly forms.”
Mann, L., Saravanan, A., Dave, I. R., Shiromani, S., Ismail, S., Xia, Y., & Huang, E. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08200 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency [28] aggregates agreement across sampled reasoning paths; semantic-entropy [14] and p(True) self-evaluation [13] extend this to free-form output.”
Strategy-Aware Optimization Modeling with Reasoning LLMs
Zhao, R., Li, F., Zuo, Y., Liu, R., Liu, Y.-S., Ma, Y., Meng, F.-Y., & Feng, J.-L. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.02545 · Cited by 4
“Large language models have been applied to automated optimization formulation and solving in operations research, leveraging their capabilities in mathematical reasoning and code generation (Brown et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2022).”
FlexSQL: Flexible Exploration and Execution Make Better Text-to-SQL Agents
Pham, Q., He, Y., Nie, P., Xu, C.-W., Rafiei, D., Wang, Y.-P., Ye, X., & Chen, J. Q. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.02815 · Cited by 4
Kuan, C.-Y., Huang, W.-P., & Lee, H.-Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25591 · Cited by 4
FASTER: Value-Guided Sampling for Fast RLPreprint
Dong, P., Swerdlow, A., Sadigh, D., & Finn, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.19730 · Cited by 4
“Best-of-N sampling is the most standard of such methods, with extensive use in many domains including in autoregressive language models [1, 2, 3], diffusion models [4], and policy learning [5, 6, 7, 8].”
Learning to Correct: Calibrated Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Attempt Chain-of-ThoughtPreprint
Ildiz, M. E., Gozeten, H. A., Taga, E. O., & Oymak, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.17912 · Cited by 3
“The emergence of advanced reasoning models is fundamentally driven by the scaling of test-time compute, where extended CoT traces help solve more complex problems (Wei et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023a; Aghajohari et al., 2025).”
SAGER: Self-Evolving User Policy Skills for Recommendation AgentPreprint
Tao, Z., Lai, R., Yu, C., Chen, W., Chen, L. J., Kong, B., Cheng, L., Zhuo, C., Li, Z., & Sun, Q. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.14972 · Cited by 6
“Chain-of-thought prompting Wei et al. [2022] improves general reasoning; self-consistency Wang et al. [2022] and tree-of-thought Yao et al. [2023] further explore structured inference, while listwise reranking Hou et al. [2024] demonstrates the superiority of comparative over absolute scoring, a…”
Does RL Expand the Capability Boundary of LLM Agents? A PASS@(k,T) AnalysisPreprint
Zhai, Z., Yan, W., Shao, X., & Wang, X. E. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.14877 · Cited by 4
Self-citationEfficient Best-Of-N with Radial Consensus Score
Nguyen, M., Gupta, S., & Le, H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.12196 · Cited by 4
“Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across diverse tasks, yet they remain prone to generating inconsistent or incorrect outputs, particularly in open-ended or reasoning-intensive scenarios [41, 18].”
InfluentialFrom Curiosity to Caution: Mitigating Reward Hacking for Best-of-N with Pessimism
Yu, Z., Wu, Z., & Block, A. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.04648 · Cited by 4
“A particularly popular and effective approach is Best-of-N (BoN) sampling (Stiennon et al., 2020; Nakano et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2025a), where multiple candidate responses are generated for a given prompt, scored according to a reward model ˆ r , and the…”
InteractiveKG: Transparent and user-controllable knowledge graph reasoning
Kim, M., Zhao, Y., Ju, J., Seo, J., & Park, H. (2026) · Information Visualization · doi:10.1177/14738716261435574 · Cited by 2
“1,2 However, these approaches still present reasoning as long, linear text sequences that are difficult for users to inspect, compare, or debug.”
Representational Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Committees: Measurement and Diversity-Aware ConsensusPreprint
Patel, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.03809 · Cited by 7
“Self-consistency [Wang et al., 2023] samples k chains from one model and takes the majority vote; Mixture-of-Agents [Wang et al., 2025] layers proposer and aggregator models; debate protocols [Smit et al., 2024] have agents critique each other before converging.”
Online Reasoning Calibration: Test-Time Training Enables Generalizable Conformal LLM ReasoningPreprint
Zhou, C., Wang, Z., Wu, M., Zhu, Q. J., Shi, F., Wang, C., Wilson, A., Jaakkola, T., & Bates, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01170 · Cited by 4
“Second, self-consistency between parallel trajectories may be used to rank or terminate reasoning attempts (Wang et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2022; Weng et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024a), and may also be combined with calibration methods for controllable efficiency gains (Xie et al., 2024; Huang…”
Wan-R1: Verifiable-Reinforcement Learning for Video Reasoning
Liu, M., Zhang, Y.-B., Liu, S.-L., Wang, L.-W., & Zhang, W.-S. (2026) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.27866 · Cited by 4
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has substantially improved the reasoning capabilities of language models [39, 38, 11].”
Social robots: a meta-analysis of learning outcomes
de Winter, J., Dodou, D., Moorlag, F., & Broekens, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1735198 · Cited by 5
Utility-Guided Orchestration for Cost-Efficient Tool-Augmented LLM Services
Liu, B., Zhao, G., Xu, H., Tang, H., Zhu, W., Li, L., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Joint Cloud Computing (JCC) · doi:10.1109/jcc72984.2026.00053
“Recent work shows that multi-step reasoning, planning, program use, and reflection can improve complex task solving [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].”
Listen First, Then Answer: Timestamp-Grounded Speech ReasoningPreprint
Jeong, J., Mousavi, P., Ravanelli, M., & Subakan, C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19468 · Cited by 4
Thinking in Latents: Adaptive Anchor Refinement for Implicit Reasoning in LLMs
Sheshanarayana, D., Pal, R., Sinha, M., & Dasgupta, T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15051 · Cited by 4
“Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in mathematical reasoning, particularly when prompted to produce explicit intermediate traces such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022).”
InfluentialFinSheet-Bench: From Simple Lookups to Complex Reasoning, Where LLMs Break on Financial Spreadsheets
Ravnik, J., Licen, M., Bührmann, F., Yuan, B., Stinson, F., & Singh, T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.07316 · Cited by 4
“Chain-of-thought prompting [Wei et al., 2022] and its variants yield large gains on mathematical reasoning tasks; self-consistency [Wang et al., 2023] and tree-of-thought [Yao et al., 2023b] extend these gains further.”
Breaking the Martingale Curse: Multi-Agent Debate via Asymmetric Cognitive Potential Energy
Liu, Y., Zhang, J.-T., Wu, Y., Takác, M., Lahlou, S., Chen, X., & Lukas, N. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06801 · Cited by 4
“The premise is intuitive: multiple agents exchange arguments iteratively, filtering noise through mutual critique to converge toward correct answers [7, 8].”
Parallel Test-Time Scaling with Multi-Sequence VerifiersPreprint
Kim, Y., Lee, S., Jang, C., Lee, H., & Lee, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.03417 · Cited by 3
“Parallel scaling can be especially fruitful (Snell et al., 2024) when complemented with sequential scaling methods (Wei et al., 2022; Jaech et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2025) that search for and revise solutions adaptively inside a chain of thought.”
InfluentialRecursive Think-Answer Process for LLMs and VLMs
Lee, B.-K., Chee, Y., & Ro, Y. M. (2026) · 2026 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition- FINDINGS Track (CVPRF) · doi:10.1109/cvprf71909.2026.00920
“Several reinforcement-learning-based methods introduce iterative refinement signals, including Reflexion [71] and Self-Consistency [80], but they operate outside the Think–Answer framework or depend on majority voting instead of introspective certainty.”
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