arxiv: 2604.19395 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

Does Self-Consistency Improve the Recall of Encyclopedic Knowledge?

Sho Hoshino , Ukyo Honda , Peinan Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords self-consistencyknowledge recallMMLUchain-of-thoughtGPT-4obenchmark evaluationlarge language models

0 comments

The pith

Self-consistency improves both symbolic reasoning and encyclopedic knowledge recall on MMLU.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks whether self-consistency, a method known to help step-by-step reasoning, also helps large language models retrieve factual knowledge. They create a knowledge-recall subset of MMLU questions using a data-driven heuristic and validate the split by matching its performance patterns to GSM8K for reasoning and MedMCQA for knowledge questions. Experiments show that self-consistency raises accuracy on both the reasoning and knowledge subsets. This produces a new high of 89 percent overall accuracy with GPT-4o.

Core claim

By partitioning MMLU into validated knowledge-recall and symbolic-reasoning subsets, the authors establish that self-consistency applied to chain-of-thought prompting improves accuracy on knowledge-recall questions even though chain-of-thought alone mainly helps reasoning. The result is an overall accuracy of 89 percent on MMLU using GPT-4o.

What carries the argument

A data-driven heuristic that partitions MMLU questions into knowledge-recall and symbolic-reasoning subsets to isolate the effect of self-consistency on each.

If this is right

Self-consistency becomes applicable to a wider range of tasks that mix knowledge recall with reasoning.
An overall accuracy of 89 percent on MMLU is reached with GPT-4o without further training.
Sampling multiple reasoning paths helps retrieve correct facts even when explicit reasoning is not required.
The gap between reasoning and pure recall capabilities in models narrows when consistency is enforced.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Multiple model generations may function as an internal check that surfaces stored facts more reliably.
The same self-consistency procedure could be applied to other factual benchmarks to measure generalization.
The benefit may stem from ensemble effects on how the model retrieves information from its parameters rather than from explicit reasoning alone.

Load-bearing premise

The data-driven heuristic from prior work accurately separates MMLU questions into knowledge-recall versus symbolic-reasoning subsets.

What would settle it

If self-consistency produces no accuracy gain on the knowledge-recall subset or if that subset's performance patterns fail to match those of MedMCQA, the central claim would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19395 by Peinan Zhang, Sho Hoshino, Ukyo Honda.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Listing symbolic reasoning and knowledge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparing SC and vanilla CoT on MMLU using different numbers of samples from GPT-4o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: An example of typical reasoning paths for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Listing our prompts used as the direct answer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

While self-consistency is known to improve performance on symbolic reasoning, its effect on the recall of encyclopedic knowledge is unclear due to a lack of targeted evaluation grounds. To address this, we establish such a knowledge recall split for the popular MMLU benchmark by applying a data-driven heuristic from prior work. We validate this split by showing that the performance patterns on the symbolic reasoning and knowledge recall subsets mirror those of GSM8K and MedMCQA, respectively. Using this solid ground, we find that self-consistency consistently improves performance across both symbolic reasoning and knowledge recall, even though its underlying CoT prompting is primarily effective for symbolic reasoning. As a result, we achieve an 89\% accuracy on MMLU, the best performance to date with the use of GPT-4o.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Self-consistency lifts MMLU scores on both reasoning and knowledge-recall subsets to 89% with GPT-4o, but the data-driven split rests on thin validation.

read the letter

The paper's main result is that self-consistency improves accuracy on encyclopedic recall questions in MMLU, not just on symbolic reasoning, and they reach 89% overall with GPT-4o. They split MMLU using a heuristic from earlier papers, check that the subsets behave like GSM8K and MedMCQA respectively, and then run the self-consistency experiments on each part. This gives a clean empirical demonstration that the method helps factual recall even when chain-of-thought itself does not. The new split and the targeted finding are the useful pieces here; prior self-consistency work stayed mostly on reasoning benchmarks, so this extends the evidence in a practical way. The high score is also a straightforward data point for anyone tracking MMLU numbers. The soft spot is the split validation. It relies on the subsets mirroring the performance patterns of the two external benchmarks, which risks being circular if the heuristic already captures similar signals. A direct content check or small human annotation round would have made the separation more convincing. The abstract gives no error bars, exact heuristic parameters, or full setup details, though the paper presumably includes them. This is for people who work on prompting, evaluation, or MMLU-style benchmarks. It is solid enough to send to referees, with the main request being to tighten the split justification. I would recommend peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether self-consistency improves recall of encyclopedic knowledge, which is unclear due to lack of targeted evaluations. It creates a split of MMLU into symbolic-reasoning and knowledge-recall subsets via a data-driven heuristic from prior work, validates the split by showing performance patterns mirror GSM8K and MedMCQA respectively, demonstrates that self-consistency improves both subsets (though CoT is mainly for symbolic), and reports 89% accuracy on MMLU with GPT-4o as the best to date.

Significance. If the split is valid, the result would be significant by showing self-consistency has utility beyond symbolic reasoning into knowledge recall, where CoT prompting is less effective. The 89% MMLU score is a strong empirical outcome. The validation strategy using independent external benchmarks (GSM8K, MedMCQA) is a positive aspect that helps ground the analysis and lowers circularity risk.

major comments (2)

[§4] §4 (Validation of the MMLU split): The split is validated only by showing that performance patterns on the subsets mirror those of GSM8K (symbolic) and MedMCQA (knowledge). This indirect approach does not include direct evidence such as human annotation of question types or qualitative examples confirming the subsets isolate encyclopedic knowledge. Since the central claim that self-consistency aids knowledge recall depends on this distinction, the validation needs strengthening to support the conclusion.
[§5] §5 (Results on MMLU): The 89% accuracy is claimed as the best to date, but the exact experimental configuration (e.g., number of self-consistency paths, sampling temperature, prompt templates, and whether the full MMLU or a subset was used) requires more explicit reporting to assess reproducibility and the magnitude of the improvement.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The statement 'the best performance to date with the use of GPT-4o' should include a citation to the prior best result for proper context and comparison.
[§2] §2 (Related Work): Additional details on the data-driven heuristic from prior work, such as its exact decision criteria, would improve accessibility without requiring readers to consult the reference.
[Figures] Figures: Performance plots should include error bars or confidence intervals to convey variability across runs or seeds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify how to strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that improve the manuscript without altering its core claims or methodology.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4] §4 (Validation of the MMLU split): The split is validated only by showing that performance patterns on the subsets mirror those of GSM8K (symbolic) and MedMCQA (knowledge). This indirect approach does not include direct evidence such as human annotation of question types or qualitative examples confirming the subsets isolate encyclopedic knowledge. Since the central claim that self-consistency aids knowledge recall depends on this distinction, the validation needs strengthening to support the conclusion.

Authors: We agree that the current validation is indirect and that adding direct evidence would strengthen the paper. In the revision we will include a new appendix with representative qualitative examples from both the symbolic-reasoning and knowledge-recall subsets, chosen to illustrate the heuristic's output. These examples will make the distinction between question types explicit and provide the direct evidence requested. While a full human annotation study of the entire split would be valuable, it lies outside the scope and resources of the present work; the added examples directly address the concern while preserving the data-driven, non-circular validation strategy already employed. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (Results on MMLU): The 89% accuracy is claimed as the best to date, but the exact experimental configuration (e.g., number of self-consistency paths, sampling temperature, prompt templates, and whether the full MMLU or a subset was used) requires more explicit reporting to assess reproducibility and the magnitude of the improvement.

Authors: We fully agree that reproducibility requires explicit reporting of these details. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (and accompanying table) that specifies the number of self-consistency paths sampled, the sampling temperature, the complete prompt templates, and confirmation that the full MMLU benchmark (not a subset) was used. This information will allow readers to replicate the 89% result and evaluate the improvement magnitude precisely. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical validation relies on independent benchmarks

full rationale

The paper applies a data-driven heuristic from prior work to create MMLU subsets and validates the split by observing that performance patterns on the subsets mirror those on the external, independent benchmarks GSM8K (symbolic) and MedMCQA (knowledge recall). This mirroring serves as confirmatory evidence rather than a definitional or fitted tautology. No equations, self-definitional parameters, or load-bearing self-citations reduce the central experimental claims to the inputs by construction. The findings on self-consistency effects are grounded in direct model evaluations across the subsets.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the correctness of the prior-work heuristic for splitting MMLU and on the assumption that matching performance patterns with GSM8K and MedMCQA validates that split. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The data-driven heuristic from prior work correctly partitions MMLU questions into knowledge-recall and symbolic-reasoning subsets.
Invoked to create the evaluation split whose validity is then checked via external benchmarks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5431 in / 1416 out tokens · 53304 ms · 2026-05-10T02:20:33.890926+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

2022 , volume =

Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author =. 2022 , volume =

2022
[2]

2022 , volume =

Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners , author =. 2022 , volume =

2022
[3]

Yubo Wang and Xueguang Ma and Ge Zhang and Yuansheng Ni and Abhranil Chandra and Shiguang Guo and Weiming Ren and Aaran Arulraj and Xuan He and Ziyan Jiang and Tianle Li and Max Ku and Kai Wang and Alex Zhuang and Rongqi Fan and Xiang Yue and Wenhu Chen , journal=NeurIPS, year=
[4]

Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents

Pearson, Karl. Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 1895
[5]

Chi and Jeff Dean and Jacob Devlin and Adam Roberts and Denny Zhou and Quoc V

Hyung Won Chung and Le Hou and Shayne Longpre and Barret Zoph and Yi Tay and William Fedus and Yunxuan Li and Xuezhi Wang and Mostafa Dehghani and Siddhartha Brahma and Albert Webson and Shixiang Shane Gu and Zhuyun Dai and Mirac Suzgun and Xinyun Chen and Aakanksha Chowdhery and Alex Castro-Ros and Marie Pellat and Kevin Robinson and Dasha Valter and Sha...
[6]

Pattern Recognition Letters , year =

Tom Fawcett , title =. Pattern Recognition Letters , year =
[7]

Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models , author=. 2022

2022
[8]

Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models , author=
[9]

2021 , url=

Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding , author=. 2021 , url=

2021
[10]

`` My Answer is C '' : First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Models

Wang, Xinpeng and Ma, Bolei and Hu, Chengzhi and Weber-Genzel, Leon and R. `` My Answer is C '' : First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Models. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. 2024

2024
[11]

Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought

Yoran, Ori and Wolfson, Tomer and Bogin, Ben and Katz, Uri and Deutch, Daniel and Berant, Jonathan. Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought. 2023

2023
[12]

MedMCQA : A Large-scale Multi-Subject Multi-Choice Dataset for Medical domain Question Answering

Pal, Ankit and Umapathi, Logesh Kumar and Sankarasubbu, Malaikannan. MedMCQA : A Large-scale Multi-Subject Multi-Choice Dataset for Medical domain Question Answering. Proceedings of the 5th AHLI Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning. 2022

2022
[13]

Are We Done with MMLU ?

Gema, Aryo Pradipta and Leang, Joshua Ong Jun and Hong, Giwon and Devoto, Alessio and Mancino, Alberto Carlo Maria and Saxena, Rohit and He, Xuanli and Zhao, Yu and Du, Xiaotang and Ghasemi Madani, Mohammad Reza and Barale, Claire and McHardy, Robert and Harris, Joshua and Kaddour, Jean and Van Krieken, Emile and Minervini, Pasquale. Are We Done with MMLU ?. 2025

2025
[14]

Zayne Rea Sprague and Fangcong Yin and Juan Diego Rodriguez and Dongwei Jiang and Manya Wadhwa and Prasann Singhal and Xinyu Zhao and Xi Ye and Kyle Mahowald and Greg Durrett , booktitle=ICLR2025, year=. To
[15]

MAQA : Evaluating Uncertainty Quantification in LLM s Regarding Data Uncertainty

Yang, Yongjin and Yoo, Haneul and Lee, Hwaran. MAQA : Evaluating Uncertainty Quantification in LLM s Regarding Data Uncertainty. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025. 2025

2025
[16]

Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLM s? A ) Forced B ) Flawed C ) Fixable D ) All of the Above

Balepur, Nishant and Rudinger, Rachel and Boyd-Graber, Jordan Lee. Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLM s? A ) Forced B ) Flawed C ) Fixable D ) All of the Above. 2025

2025
[17]

MMLU - CF : A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark

Zhao, Qihao and Huang, Yangyu and Lv, Tengchao and Cui, Lei and Sun, Qinzheng and Mao, Shaoguang and Zhang, Xin and Xin, Ying and Yin, Qiufeng and Li, Scarlett and Wei, Furu. MMLU - CF : A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmark. 2025

2025
[18]

ICML 2024 Workshop on In-Context Learning , year=

Universal Self-Consistency for Large Language Models , author=. ICML 2024 Workshop on In-Context Learning , year=

2024
[19]

and Neubig, Graham

Robinson, Nathaniel and Ogayo, Perez and Mortensen, David R. and Neubig, Graham. C hat GPT MT : Competitive for High- (but Not Low-) Resource Languages. Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Machine Translation. 2023

2023
[20]

2020 , url=

The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration , author=. 2020 , url=

2020
[21]

Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation

Koehn, Philipp. Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation. 2004

2004
[22]

Multiple Choice Questions: Reasoning Makes Large Language Models (LLMs) More Self-Confident, Especially When They are Wrong

Tairan Fu and Javier Conde and Gonzalo Martínez and María Grandury and Pedro Reviriego , year=. Multiple Choice Questions: Reasoning Makes Large Language Models (. 2501.09775 , archivePrefix=

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[23]

2021 , eprint=

Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems , author=. 2021 , eprint=

2021
[24]

OpenAI and Josh Achiam and Steven Adler and Sandhini Agarwal and Lama Ahmad and Ilge Akkaya and Florencia Leoni Aleman and Diogo Almeida and Janko Altenschmidt and Sam Altman and Shyamal Anadkat and Red Avila and Igor Babuschkin and Suchir Balaji and Valerie Balcom and Paul Baltescu and Haiming Bao and Mohammad Bavarian and Jeff Belgum and Irwan Bello and...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[25]

2024 , eprint=

Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models , author=. 2024 , eprint=

2024
[26]

2025 , eprint=

Qwen2.5 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

2025