PreprintCited by 44Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeLogic, programming, and type systemsFormal Methods in Verification

Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Open access
Ling, Zhan, Fang, Yunhao, Li, Xuanlin, Huang, Zhiao, Lee, Mingu, Memisevic, Roland, Su, Hao·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly benefit from Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting in performing various reasoning tasks. While CoT allows models to produce more comprehensive reasoning processes, its emphasis on intermediate reasoning steps can inadvertently introduce hallucinations and accumulated errors, thereby limiting models' ability to solve complex reasoning tasks. Inspired by how humans engage in careful and meticulous deductive logical reasoning processes to solve tasks, we seek to enable language models to perform explicit and rigorous deductive reasoning, and also ensure the trustworthiness of their reasoning process through self-verification. However, directly verifying the validity of an entire deductive reasoning process is challenging, even with advanced models like ChatGPT. In light of this, we propose to decompose a reasoning verification process into a series of step-by-step subprocesses, each only receiving their necessary context and premises. To facilitate this procedure, we propose Natural Program, a natural language-based deductive reasoning format. Our approach enables models to generate precise reasoning steps where subsequent steps are more rigorously grounded on prior steps. It also empowers language models to carry out reasoning self-verification in a step-by-step manner. By integrating this verification process into each deductive reasoning stage, we significantly enhance the rigor and trustfulness of generated reasoning steps. Along this process, we also improve the answer correctness on complex reasoning tasks. Code will be released at https://github.com/lz1oceani/verify_cot.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03872

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Extended reasoning steps by the system, such as chain-of-thought, deductive verification, and self-verification, improve results.

    “Several approaches have been shown to improve results with extended reasoning steps by the system, such as chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022), deductive verification (Ling et al., 2023), and self-verification (Miao et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023a; Weng et al., 2022).”

    From Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Ling et al., 2023

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ling, Z., Fang, Y., Li, X., Huang, Z., Lee, M., Memisevic, R., & Su, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
36407-36433
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133230326
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4
FWCI
7.81
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Tsinghua University
  • University of California, San Diego
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
Keywords
chain-of-thought reasoning, deductive verification, large language models, mathematical reasoning, formal verification

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