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 701–800 of 1,205
PaLMR: Towards Faithful Visual Reasoning via Multimodal Process Alignment
Li, Y., Hui, Q., Yan, C.-Y., Cheng, K., Zhao, F., Tan, C., Gao, H.-L., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Dai, X.-Y., et al. (2026) · 2026 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition- FINDINGS Track (CVPRF) · doi:10.1109/cvprf71909.2026.00587 · Cited by 4
“Subsequent works such as Self-Consistency [32] and Tree-of-Thought [40] encouraged multi-path exploration and reflection.”
Know What You Know: Metacognitive Entropy Calibration for Verifiable RL ReasoningPreprint
ZhAO, Q., Yang, C., Jing, J., Zhang, Y., Ren, X., Yu, L., Zhang, S., & Yin, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.22751 · Cited by 4
VecGlypher: Unified Vector Glyph Generation with Language Models
Huang, X., Gauri, B., Ng, K.-W., Ng, T., Xu, M.-M., Liu, Z., Ren, W.-M., An, Z.-C., Zhou, Z.-J., Qiu, H., et al. (2026) · Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21461 · Cited by 4
Prompt Architecture Determines Reasoning Quality: A Variable Isolation Study on the Car Wash Problem
Jo, H.-H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21814 · Cited by 4
“Wang et al. [2023] extended chain-of-thought by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer.”
Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-PreferencesPreprint
Karlekar, S., Zheng, C., Saebo, M., Beltran-Velez, N., Yu, S., Bowlan, J. M., Kucer, M., & Blei, D. M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21585 · Cited by 2
“Problem-only methods receive only the problem statement: zero-shot chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), Feedback Descent (Lee et al., 2025), Best-of-N —which selects from N i.i.d. samples via the same pairwise preference mechanism used by D UEL -”
SenTSR-Bench: Thinking with Injected Knowledge for Time-Series ReasoningPreprint
He, Z., Han, B., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Lin, H., Zhu, Q., Fang, H., Maddix, D. C., Ansari, A. F., Chandrayan, A., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.19455 · Cited by 2
“We compare our injection-based approach against several commonly used prompting alternatives, including few-shot prompting, self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022), and tree-of-thought (Yao et al., 2023).”
Limited Reasoning Space: The cage of long-horizon reasoning in LLMsPreprint
Li, Z., Wu, G., Wang, C., & Zhao, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.19281 · Cited by 3
“In contrast to previous task decomposition methods (Wei et al., 2022; Besta et al., 2024) that premise on unbounded reasoning expansion, Halo treats reasoning as a resource-constrained optimization problem.”
InfluentialOneLatent: Single-Token Compression for Visual Latent Reasoning
Lv, B., Sun, Y.-S., Wang, J.-J., & Shi, H. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13738 · Cited by 4
“Explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is one of the most effective ways to improve reasoning in language models [Wei et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2022b, Zhou et al., 2022, Khot et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2022a, Sprague et al., 2024], but it is expensive at deployment: output length, latency, and…”
Ong, K., Boughorbel, S., Xiao, L., Ekbote, C., Dai, W., Qu, A., Wu, J., Mao, R., Hoque, M. E., Cambria, E., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10635 · Cited by 5
“Q: Does this video contain a humorous punchline?”
Certainty robustness: Evaluating LLM stability under self-challenging prompts
Saadat, M. J., & Nemzer, S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.03330 · Cited by 4
“Wang et al. showed that this ensemble-of-thoughts approach significantly improved accuracy on math and commonsense reasoning benchmarks [5].”
MARTI-MARS2: Scaling Multi-Agent Self-Search via Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation
Wang, S., Li, P., Fu, Y., Liu, K., Li, F.-Y., Liu, Y., Sun, X., Li, Z.-L., Zhao, S.-Y., Zhao, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07848 · Cited by 4
“Another common aggregation method is Majority Voting[3, 54, 43], which selects the most frequently generated answer across multiple reasoning paths.”
Shang, W., Sun, Y., Ma, J.-X., & Huang, X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06423 · Cited by 4
“Additionally, we also compare with three widely-adapted and advanced reasoning strategies: chain of thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022), few-shot reasoning (Alayrac et al., 2022), and self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023).”
SPARC: Separating Perception And Reasoning Circuits for Test-time Scaling of VLMsPreprint
Avogaro, N., Debnath, N., Mi, L., Frick, T., Wang, J., He, Z., Hua, H., Konrad Schindler, B., & Rigotti, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06566 · Cited by 6
“Foundational techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2023) and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) demonstrated that linear reasoning traces significantly improve problem-solving capabilities.”
NEX: Neuron Explore-Exploit Scoring for Label-Free Chain-of-Thought Selection and Model Ranking
Chen, K., Feng, Z., Zhao, S.-H., Xiong, K., Nian, J., Wang, Y.-N., Xiao, C.-Y., & Cao, Y.-X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.05805 · Cited by 4
“Different from single-pass decoding, test-time scaling elicits chain-of-thought (CoT) traces and spend additional compute by sampling, searching, or verifying multiple candidates before selecting a final output [21, 27].”
A Theoretical Analysis of Test-Driven Code Generation
Menet, N., Hersche, M., Krause, A., & Rahimi, A. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06098 · Cited by 4
“Post-generation selection strategies Selection heuristics have become a popular approach for improving performance without retraining [Wang et al., 2023].”
Certain Head, Uncertain Tail: Expert-Sample for Test-Time Scaling in Fine-Grained MoE
Chen, Y.-T., Wang, P.-S., Zeng, N.-X., Shao, Y.-T., Qiu, S., Li, G., Liu, J., & Cheng, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02443 · Cited by 4
“By generating multiple candidate solutions and selecting the best one through verification (Irvine et al., 2023) or majority voting (Wang et al., 2023), models can achieve accuracy far beyond single-run inference.”
Multi-LLM Adaptive Conformal Inference for Reliable LLM Responses
Noh, K., Lee, S., Kim, I., & Song, K. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01285 · Cited by 4
“This score function can be constructed in various ways, such as by directly querying an LLM (Tian et al., 2023; Guan et al., 2024) or by capturing frequency (Wang et al., 2023; Manakul et al., 2023).”
A State-Transition Framework for Efficient LLM ReasoningPreprint
Zhang, L., Zhao, Y., Wang, L., Shi, T., Luo, W., Zhang, K., & Su, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01198
“Through prompting step-by-step reasoning, CoT enables LLMs to decompose complex problems into simpler sub-tasks, thus improving their problem-solving capabilities (Yao et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024).”
Decoding Ambiguous Emotions with Test-Time Scaling in Audio-Language ModelsPreprint
Jia, H., Li, W., Wu, J., Yu, X., Gao, Y., Cheng, J., Tang, X., Xia, F., & Dang, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03873 · Cited by 5
“Five different TTS methods have been evaluated: CoT prompting (Wang et al., 2022) and four search against verifiers, as shown in Figure 2.”
Patel, K. A., Surendira, S., George, J., & Kapale, S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22290 · Cited by 4
“It is supported by empirical observation that LLM errors on atomic tasks tend to be diverse rather than systematic (Wang et al., 2023).”
InfluentialMitigating Overthinking in Large Reasoning Models via Difficulty-aware Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Wan, Q., Xu, Z., Wei, L., Shen, X., & Sun, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21418 · Cited by 4
“Expanding the length of thought allows LRMs to simulate more detailed reasoning paths and iteratively verify answers, but it also introduces unnecessary redundant tokens and inference burden for simple tasks [5]–[7].”
FunPRM: Function-as-Step Process Reward Model with Meta Reward Correction for Code GenerationPreprint
Zhang, R.-Y., Qin, P.-J., Cao, Q., Xue, E., & Xie, P.-T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22249 · Cited by 4
Models Under SCOPE: Scalable and Controllable Routing via Pre-hoc ReasoningPreprint
Cao, Q., Zhang, S., Zhou, R., Zhang, R., Qin, P., & Xie, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22323 · Cited by 2
“Reasoning Language Models (RLMs) (OpenAI, 2025b; DeepSeek, 2025) have achieved remarkable performance, but they come with high costs and latency (Wei et al., 2023; Shinn et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023b; Cao et al., 2025).”
Munjal, P., Christophe, C., Rajan, R., & Kanithi, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.13244 · Cited by 5
“Simultaneously, test-time strategies such as self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022a), CoT decoding (Wang and Zhou, 2024), ESC (Li et al., 2024) and Pass@k evaluation incur significant computational costs, particularly when sampling multiple trajectories is required to optimize the performance.”
Robot Planning via LLM Proposals and Symbolic Verification
Pesjak, D., & Žabkar, J. (2026) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make8010022 · Cited by 4
“Alignment techniques such as instruction tuning and chain-of-thought prompting improve their reasoning ability [14–17], but they remain prone to hallucinations and logical errors.”
Learning Latency-Aware Orchestration for Multi-Agent Systems
Shi, X., Zheng, M., & Lou, Q. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13359 · Cited by 4
“SC. Self-Consistency Wang et al. [2022]: to enhance robustness, we aggregate five CoT-generated solutions through an ensemble step over the candidate answers.”
Reasoning Models Will Sometimes Lie About Their ReasoningPreprint
Walden, W., & Wanner, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07663 · Cited by 4
Hallucinations Live in Variance
Flouro, A. R., & Chadwick, S. P. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07058 · Cited by 4
“Self-consistency methods [21] vary sampled reasoning paths to improve accuracy; Semantic Stability varies prompt semantics under deterministic decoding to measure structural disagreement.”
From Text to Simulation: A Multi-Agent LLM Workflow for Automated Chemical Process Design
Tian, X., Du, W., Yang, S.-Y., Hu, H., Xin, H., Qu, S., & Ye, K. (2026) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.06776 · Cited by 4
“To enhance the rationality of parameter configurations, we employ chain-of-thought(Wei et al. 2022) prompting strategies to guide LLMs through step-by-step reasoning.”
The Molecular Structure of Thought: Mapping the Topology of Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Chen, Q., Du, Y., Li, Z.-N., Liu, J.-H., Duan, S., Guo, J.-R., Liu, M.-H., Liu, J.-H., Yang, T., Zhang, G., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.06002 · Cited by 4
PRISM: A Unified Framework for Post-Training LLMs Without Verifiable RewardsPreprint
Ghimire, M., Feng, A., You, L., Luo, Y., Liu, F., & Zhu, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04700 · Cited by 4
“Best-of-N and Majority Voting are often referred to as Consistency-based method, as they are a proxy to how consistent the model is in its response.”
Chen, Z., Gao, Y., Gu, S., Yong, Z., Li, L., Wang, R., Lei, Q., & Zeng, S. (2026) · Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science · doi:10.1007/s44254-025-00140-3 · Cited by 4
“Meanwhile, the self-consistency strategy improves output stability and diversity by generating multiple versions of an anesthesia plan for the same input data [32].”
Linear Dynamics in the RLVR Training of Large Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, T., Liu, J., Wu, Z., Jin, S., Chen, W., Xu, H., & Miao, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04537 · Cited by 9
“This elicitation-only view is empirically supported by test-time scaling studies, where majority voting often matches RLVR peak performance [Wang et al., 2023, Karan and Du, 2026].”
Batch-of-Thought: Cross-Instance Learning for Enhanced LLM Reasoning
Yang, X., Jia, F.-R., Xie, R., Xi, X.-D., Bian, H., Li, J., & Agrawal, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02950 · Cited by 4
“Sampling-based methods estimate uncertainty through self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023c), semantic entropy (Kuhn et al., 2023), or ensemble disagreement (Chen et al., 2024).”
Correct, Concise and Complete: Multi-stage Training For Adaptive Reasoning
Rakotonirina, N. C., Pang, R., John, N. A., Bohlke-Schneider, M., & Hardalov, M. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02972 · Cited by 4
“Large Language Models perform better on reasoning-heavy tasks such as math, problem-solving, and coding by increasing test-time computation (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2025).”
Entropy-Tree: Tree-Based Decoding with Entropy-Guided Exploration
Wei, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, Z.-H., Zhao, S., Huang, T., Zhao, H., Liu, C., Zhang, S.-A., & Yan, J.-C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15296 · Cited by 4
“Self-Consistency [8] addresses reasoning tasks by generating multiple independent samples and selecting the most frequent answer through majority voting.”
Jung, S., Choi, S., Jeon, G., Cho, M., & Lim, J. (2025) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20907 · Cited by 4
“11 shows representative success VLM leads to more robust and precise 3D visual grounding.”
Advances, Evaluation, and Explainability of Large Language Models in Healthcare: A Systematic Review
Amin, S. U., Guizani, M., & Hossain, M. S. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications · doi:10.1145/3786334 · Cited by 5
Reaching Agreement Among Reasoning LLM AgentsPreprint
Ruan, C., Wang, Y., Shi, Z., & Li, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20184 · Cited by 5
“Diverse agents engage in multi-round discussions where they critique each other’s reasoning and progressively refine their proposals [4, 13, 47].”
Demystifying LLM-as-a-Judge: Analytically Tractable Model for Inference-Time ScalingPreprint
Halder, I., & Pehlevan, C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.19905 · Cited by 4
“…Setlur et al., 2025; Arora and Zanette, 2025; Wu et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2025; Du et al., 2025; Huang et al., 2025a) or a best-of-k strategy (Wang et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023a; Brown et al., 2024; Levi, 2024; Schaeffer et al., 2025b; Huang et al., 2025b; Chen et al., 2024b; Du et al.,…”
QuadSentinel: Sequent Safety for Machine-Checkable Control in Multi-agent Systems
Yang, Y., Jiang, Y.-L., Wang, Q.-Z., Tan, Y.-S., Zhu, X.-Y., Chow, S. S. M., Zheng, B., & Yue, X.-Y. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.16279 · Cited by 4
“Prior committee-style methods (Wang et al., 2023; Brown-Cohen et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2025) often use unstructured deliberation or majority vote among generalist models for evaluation, debate, or tool choice.”
Characterizing Mamba's Selective Memory using Auto-Encoders
Hossain, T., RobertL.Logan, I., Jagadeesan, G., Singh, S., Tetreault, J. R., & Jaimes, A. (2025) · IJCNLP-AACL · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.15653 · Cited by 4
“…over pure transformers (Wang et al., 2025a), reinforcing the value of SSM-based models—especially as inference-time scaling is increasingly used to enhance LM reasoning through techniques like task decomposition (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023) and increased sampling (Wang et al., 2023).”
Diniz, P., Yokoe, T., Öttl, F., Pereira, H., Henriques, R., & Samuelsson, K. (2025) · Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy · doi:10.1002/ksa.70222 · Cited by 4
“Pairing temperature ‐ zero decoding with fi xed seeds and majority ‐ vote self ‐ consistency is a possible mitigation route [26, 37].”
Hold Onto That Thought: Assessing KV Cache Compression On ReasoningPreprint
Liu, M., Palnitkar, A., Rabbani, T., Jae, H., Sang, K., Yao, D., Shabihi, S., Zhao, F., Li, T., Zhang, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.12008 · Cited by 8
“Prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) encourage models to externalize their reasoning process, generating intermediate “thinking” steps that can extend for hundreds or thousands of tokens to solve a problem (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).”
Towards philosophical reasoning with agentic LLMs: Socratic method for scientific assistance
Harb, H., Sun, Y., Unal, M., Aggarwal, A., Bissolotti, C., Buyuker, I. S., Hong, S., Johnson, L. R., Jolaoso, L. A., Sengupta, B., et al. (2025) · Machine Learning Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae277f · Cited by 3
“Building on CoT, Self-Consistency samples multiple paths and selects a majority answer [37].”
Xue, Q.-Y., Liu, W.-C., Wang, S.-Q., Wang, H.-M., Wu, Y., & Gao, W. (2025) · European Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02340 · Cited by 4
“We further apply self-consistency prompting to evaluate whether VLM’s generated rationales align with its internal decision-making [31, 53, 54].”
Inference-Time Distillation: Cost-Efficient Agents Without Fine-Tuning or Manual Prompt EngineeringPreprint
Sarukkai, V., Gupta, A., Hong, J. W., Gharbi, M., & Fatahalian, K. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02543 · Cited by 5
“…that the established inference-time mechanisms of dynamic in-context learning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2024; Sarukkai et al., 2025) and self-consistency cascades (Wang et al., 2022b; Yue et al., 2024) can be combined to achieve distillation-like cost reductions while preserving agility.”
Beyond sparsity: an empirical study of structured collaboration in modular AI
Zhou, X., Kim, S., Wang, Y., & Zhang, K. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.131616 · Cited by 4
DETAIL Matters: Measuring the Impact of Prompt Specificity on Reasoning in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Kim, O. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02246 · Cited by 6
GazeLLM: a plug-and-play zero-shot LLM reasoning framework for boosting gaze target detection
Yang, Y., & Lu, F. (2025) · Visual Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44267-025-00101-1 · Cited by 4
Large Language Model based Smart Contract Auditing with LLMBugScanner
Yuan, Y.-N., Wang, Y., Xu, Y.-C., Yahn, Z., Hu, S.-H., & Liu, L. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02069 · Cited by 4
“…stray predictions [23]; (ii) self-consistency verification , where multiple prompting or sampling is used and only consensus outputs are accepted [42,5]; and (iii) integrating symbolic consistency checks as a filter layer—e.g., verifying that a flagged vulnerability is consistent with the…”
Adversarial Training for Process Reward ModelsPreprint
Juneja, G., Nathani, D., & Wang, W. Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.22888 · Cited by 4
“Mathematical Reasoning with LLMs LLM reasoning has advanced through chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022), self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023), and outcome-level reinforcement learning (DeepSeek-AI, 2025; OpenAI, 2024).”
EWE: An Agentic Framework for Extreme Weather AnalysisPreprint
Jiang, Z., Wang, J., Yue, X., Guo, Z., Zhang, W., Ling, F., Ouyang, W., & Bai, L. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21444 · Cited by 5
“This method utilizes expert-annotated chain-of-thought Wei et al. (2022) to structure the LLM’s problem-solving process.”
InfluentialJudgeBoard: Benchmarking and Enhancing Small Language Models for Reasoning EvaluationPreprint
Bi, Z., Srivastava, G., Li, Y., Lu, M., Roy, S., Ziyadi, M., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15958 · Cited by 2
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al. 2022) breaks reasoning into sequential steps, while self-consistency (Wang et al. 2022) aggregates multiple reasoning paths.”
Self-citationIn the search for the perfect prompt in medical AI queries
Berghea, F., Berghea, C. E., Daia, C. O., Ciuc, D. M., & Dincă, G. V. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1689178 · Cited by 5
“Traditional CoT guides responses step by step (Wei et al., 2023; Savage et al., 2024).”
ARCHE: A Novel Task to Evaluate LLMs on Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction
Li, P.-Z., Liu, J.-Q., Yu, J., Liu, L.-H., Ding, M.-Y., Ouyang, W.-L., Tang, S.-X., & Chen, X. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.12485 · Cited by 4
“Subsequent work has enhanced its reliability through methods like self-consistency (Wang et al. 2023; Yu, He, and Ying 2024) and Tree-of-Thought (Yao et al. 2023).”
IntelliTopo: An IaC Generation Service for Industrial Network Topology Construction
Shao, M., Liu, Z., Han, W., Gao, C.-Y., Liu, J.-C., & Liao, Q. (2025) · International Conference on Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/ase63991.2025.00298 · Cited by 4
“Extensions such as Auto-CoT[38] and Self-Consistency[39] further automate reasoning chain generation and reduce errors by aggregating diverse solutions.”
ProgRAG: Hallucination-Resistant Progressive Retrieval and Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs
Park, M., Yang, H., Kim, J., Park, K., & Kim, H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.10240 · Cited by 4
“To encourage the LLM to articulate its step-by-step reasoning, we apply Chain-of-Thought prompting (CoT) (Wei et al. 2022) leveraging our key observations on the Freebase KG widely used in this study: this KG organizes each relation into a three-level hierarchy, i.e., domain.source type.target type…”
InfluentialA Cost-Aware Approach for Collaborating Large Language Models and Small Language Models
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Lu, S., Deng, H., Tian, H., & Dou, W. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3746252.3760990 · Cited by 4
“Self-Consistency generates multiple reasoning chains and selects the most consistent result, improving robustness [27].”
TimeSense:Making Large Language Models Proficient in Time-Series AnalysisPreprint
Zhang, Z., Pei, C., Gao, T., Xie, Z., Hao, Y., Yu, Z., Xu, L., Xiao, T., Han, J., & Pei, D. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.06344 · Cited by 1
“The textual component is decoded into natural language via a tokenizer, producing human-interpretable reasoning outputs for the target tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023b; OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023a).”
CoT-X: An Adaptive Framework for Cross-Model Chain-of-Thought Transfer and Optimization
Bi, Z.-Q., Wang, Y.-Z., Wang, T.-Y., Hao, J., Peng, B.-J., Weng, W.-Q., Gu, J.-Y., Pang, J. J., & Song, X.-Y. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05747 · Cited by 4
“Na¨ıve truncation strategies that simply cut reasoning sequences at fixed points disrupt logical coherence, leading to substantial performance loss [17,18].”
InfluentialReusing Pre-Training Data at Test Time is a Compute MultiplierPreprint
Fang, A., Voice, T., Pang, R., Schmidt, L., & Gunter, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.04234 · Cited by 5
“Results can then be aggregated with techniques like self-consistency (Wang et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023) or verifiers.”
Test-time Scaling of LLMs: A Survey from A Subproblem Structure PerspectivePreprint
Yang, Z.-Y., Guo, X., Zhang, T., Xu, H.-J., & Li, B.-Y. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.14772 · Cited by 4
“Unimodal Applications Among the most straight-forward strategies is Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023a), which samples diverse chains of thought and selects the most frequent solution as the final output.”
InfluentialChopping Trees: Semantic Similarity Based Dynamic Pruning for Tree-of-Thought Reasoning
Kim, J., Huang, X.-R., Reza, Z., Grand, G., Zhu, K., & Lagasse, R. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.08595 · Cited by 4
“Linear strategies such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [16] and Self-Consistent CoT [15] improved multi-step reasoning but explored limited paths.”
Closing the Feedback Loop in Text2Vis: Refining Visualization with Vision-Language Models
Shi, S., Ren, T., Zhu, G., Feng, G., & Hu, J. C. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3746027.3755862 · Cited by 3
“Among these, self-consistency [4, 21, 26] leverages the stochasticity of LLMs to produce diverse reasoning paths and synthesizes them for more reliable outputs, reducing single-path errors and ensuring alignment with the NLQ.”
Investigating Thinking Behaviours of Reasoning-Based Language Models for Social Bias Mitigation
Luo, G., Maab, I., Mou, L.-L., & Yamagishi, J. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17062 · Cited by 4
“• Self-Consistency (SC, Wang et al., 2023) samples multiple candidate responses given the same input question and selects the most frequently occurring answer as the final output.”
Yu, B., Wang, X.-M., Lian, S., Li, H.-T., Wu, C., Hu, R., Wang, B.-L., Wei, Y.-L., & Chen, K. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.16449 · Cited by 4
“Complementar-ily, external TTS scales the breadth of inference by generating and evaluating multiple reasoning trajectories.”
InfluentialSelf-citationBerrayana, L., Heakl, A., Sohail, M. A., Hofmann, T., Khan, S., & Wei, C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15244 · Cited by 2
“Autoregressive (AR) language models achieve strong reasoning accuracy, especially with chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting and its variants such as zero-shot CoT and self-consistency (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023b).”
Palmeira Ferraz, T., Mehta, K., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-S., Oraby, S., Liu, S., Subramanian, V., Chung, T., Bansal, M., & Peng, N. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.458 · Cited by 3
“Our results also highlight the essential roles of the Decomposer and Critic in the D E CRIM pipeline.”
Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models
Zhang, Q., Hu, C., Upasani, S., Ma, B., Hong, F., Kamanuru, V., Rainton, J., Wu, C., Ji, M., Li, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04618 · Cited by 370
“Contexts are inter-pretable and explainable for users and developers (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022), allow rapid integration of new knowledge at runtime (Lewis et al., 2020; Borgeaud et al., 2022), and can be shared across models or modules in a compound system (Khot et al., 2022).”
Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning
Han, T., Wang, Z., Fang, C., Zhao, S., Ma, S., & Chen, Z. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 31
“Among them, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a key technique for improving LLM reasoning by breaking problems into intermediate steps, enabling better performance on multiple tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Lyu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Feng et al., 2024).”
InfluentialReliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
Borazjanizadeh, N., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.11373 · Cited by 3
“…generated by the LLM, fails to execute successfully 1 , we rerun the model with a slightly increased temperature (with a preset maximum number of attempts) and return the numerical answer returned by the model’s first executable code generation (in contrast to, e.g., majority-vote schemes [38]).”
Do Large Language Models Align with Core Mental Health Counseling Competencies?
Nguyen, V. C., Taher, M., Hong, D., Possobom, V. K., Gopalakrishnan, V. T., Raj, E., Li, Z., Soled, H. J., Birnbaum, M. L., Kumar, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.22446 · Cited by 3
On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks
Stechly, K., Valmeekam, K., & Kambhampati, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.08115 · Cited by 120
AgentSquare: Automatic LLM Agent Search in Modular Design Space
Shang, Y., Li, Y., Zhao, K., Ma, L., Liu, J., Xu, F., & Li, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.06153 · Cited by 3
Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs
Zhuge, M., Wang, W., Kirsch, L., Faccio, F., Khizbullin, D., & Schmidhuber, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.16823 · Cited by 3
Free-MAD: Consensus-Free Multi-Agent Debate
Cui, Y., Fu, H., Zhang, H., Wang, L., & Zuo, C. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1600 · Cited by 28
FlexRouter: Learning Complementary Model Sets for Flexible LLM Routing
Wei, W., Yang, H., Yang, T., Basu, S., Chen, H.-J., Zhao, A., Dernoncourt, F., Rossi, R. A., & Eldardiry, H. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.38585 · Cited by 3
“This paradigm is widely used in ensemble methods like LLM-Blender (Jiang et al., 2023), which ranks outputs from multiple diverse models, and self-consistency frameworks (Wang et al., 2022) that aggregate multiple reasoning paths.”
Risk-Controlled Selective LLM Answering by Pricing Label-Free ChecksPreprint
Lee, D. J., Lee, J., Park, C., Moon, H., & Lim, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.37493 · Cited by 4
“Examples include a re-solve that reaches the same answer (Wang et al., 2022) and a backward probe that recovers an answer from reconstructed reasoning (Weng et al., 2023).”
InfluentialFrom Decorative to Load-Bearing: Task Difficulty Shapes the Causal Role of Chain-of-Thought
Jia, R., & Mu, D. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.25366 · Cited by 3
“Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) instead aggregates across multiple sampled CoT paths.”
Dreaming in Flow: Bidirectional Self-Refinement for Unified Multimodal Models
Hao, K.-C., Liang, Y.-Z., Chen, T., Li, R., Huang, H.-B., Zhang, C., Gu, Y., & Li, X.-L. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.08282 · Cited by 3
Evaluating Confidence-Gated Retrieval with Matched Trajectory ReplayPreprint
Chhikara, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.26846 · Cited by 3
He, J., & Yu, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.02925 · Cited by 2
“Ensemble learning, self-consistency, and mixture-of-agents architectures combine multiple inferences to improve predictive accuracy and variance reduction [3, 22–24].”
TRACE: Temporal Retrieval with Anchored and Convergent Evidence for Long-Horizon Video Understanding
Liu, P., Niu, J.-B., Hu, X., Shi, Z.-Y., Wang, Z.-T., Huang, L.-J., & Liu, S. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.22516 · Cited by 3
Beyond Correctness: Benchmarking and Aligning Response Behaviors in Hybrid-Thinking MLLMsPreprint
Wang, X., Wang, W., Yang, H., Lin, Y., Ruan, Z., Peng, S., Peng, Q., Qiao, N., Lu, F., Ma, G., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12781 · Cited by 2
“Chain-of-thought prompting and self-consistency showed that eliciting or sampling intermediate reasoning can improve answer accuracy [16, 44, 45].”
Self-citationThinking With Tools, Not With Pixels: Tool Calls as Text Scaffolds for Visual ReasoningPreprint
Shao, J., Yang, Y., Liao, Y., Shen, Y., Yang, C., & Xu, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.09682 · Cited by 3
“Structured intermediate text—chain-of-thought [74, 38], self-consistency extensions [69, 104, 89], reasoning-trace RL [8], and multimodal CoT [99, 49, 81]—has been the locus of capability gains in both LLMs and VLMs. MM-CoT [93] benchmarks whether visual CoT is grounded in images; Thinking in Space…”
Position: It's Time to Optimize LLMs for Self-ConsistencyPreprint
Pres, I., Li, B. Z., Ruis, L., Guo, Z. C., Hu, K., Damani, M., Puri, I., Lubana, E. S., & Andreas, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.05188 · Cited by 2
Hierarchical Group-Conditional Conformal Risk Control for Selective Prediction in Language Models
Salem, M., Böhm, L., Pontes, D., & Ferrugem, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.24562 · Cited by 3
“Several uncertainty scores have been proposed for LLMs. Token-level entropy (Malinin & Gales, 2021), sequence-level NLL, and self-consistency scores (Wang et al., 2023) all proxy model confidence.”
J-CoT: Chain-of-Thought in J-Space
Wu, J.-D., Zhu, J.-Y., Liu, F.-L., Hu, M.-H., & Pan, J.-Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21981 · Cited by 3
“Subsequent work improves this linguistic interface through sampling and aggregation, as in self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023b), or through explicit planning, as in Plan-and-Solve prompting and Tree of Thoughts (Wang et al., 2023a; Yao et al., 2023).”
Contrastive On-Policy Distillation
Ruan, J., Tang, J., Yuan, W.-Z., Liu, T., Bai, S., Liu, D., Yang, Z., & Fu, Y.-Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.19046 · Cited by 3
“Step-by-step reasoning has thus become a dominant paradigm for tackling complex tasks (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; Huang & Chang, 2023).”
Oracle Gap and Signal Fidelity: A Fixed-Pool Diagnostic for Test-Time CollaborationPreprint
Hu, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.17531 · Cited by 5
One Axis, No Brake: Self-Knowledge Limits the Filtering of Harmful Peer Conformity in LLMsPreprint
Hu, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.18998 · Cited by 1
“The premise has support (debate and self-consistency can raise accuracy (Du et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024)), and it now underwrites production pipelines for reasoning, code, and decision support.”
Partition, Prompt, Aggregate: Statistical Self-Consistency in Language Models
Wolf, P., Buening, T. K., Krause, A., & Mendler-Dünner, C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.15277 · Cited by 3
“For example, Wang et al. [2022] use it to describe a sampling-and-voting procedure to stabilize responses.”
AI Agents Do Not Fail Alone:The Context Fails FirstPreprint
Bousetouane, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.14275 · Cited by 3
“It includes role prompting, few-shot examples, output formatting, chain-of-thought prompting, self-consistency, and automatic prompt optimization [15, 19, 18, 23].”
Track, Rank, Crack: Epistemic Working Memory Scales Multi-Hop Reasoning in Language AgentsPreprint
Liu, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.12267 · Cited by 4
“Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022) and its variants (Wang et al., 2023; Khot et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023) improve single-turn reasoning but do not track beliefs across turns.”
ReflectVLN: Training Vision-Language Navigation Agents with Reflective Reasoning
Wang, J., Yang, Y.-R., Zhu, Y., Luo, M.-H., Xie, S.-C., Liu, F., & Xu, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.12680 · Cited by 3
“While early advances such as self-consistency [37] and hierarchical task decomposition [55] focused on improving the robustness of internal reasoning, the emergence of VLA models has shifted attention toward grounded decision-making.”
Do AI Agents Know When a Task Is Simple? Toward Complexity-Aware Reasoning and ExecutionPreprint
Yin, J., & Feng, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13034 · Cited by 3
“They have been deployed as open-ended explorers (G. Wang et al., 2023) and as software engineers that resolve real repository issues (Jimenez et al., 2024).”
OpsMem: Dual-Memory Reasoning with Cross-Memory Resonance for Failure Diagnosis
Sun, Y.-Q., Gao, R., Luo, Y., Gu, W.-W., Zhang, S.-L., Guo, Q., Fu, Q.-A., Wu, Y.-L., & Pei, D. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.11357 · Cited by 3
“To improve reliability, we apply self-consistency [25] by obtaining at least five independent judgments and aggregating them via majority voting, and further validate the results by expert sampling.”
When Reasoning Hurts Legal Drafting: The Verbalization Bottleneck in Patent Claim GenerationPreprint
Jiang, L., Sun, W., & Goetz, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.10480 · Cited by 1
The Optimal Sample Complexity of Learning Autoregressive Chain-of-Thought
Li, Z.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07423 · Cited by 3
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