Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.03872 v3 pith:YMA6KFBL submitted 2023-06-06 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords reasoningmodelsdeductiveprocessstepstaskslanguageverification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Tracing Uncertainty in Language Model "Reasoning"

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Uncertainty trace profiles from LM reasoning traces predict correct final answers with AUROC up to 0.807 and enable early error detection using only initial tokens.

  2. SymStep: Symbolic Step Verification for Logical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    SymStep couples atomic LLM deductions to a deterministic constraint propagator with MRV hints, reaching ~97–100% on constraint-dense logic puzzles where CoT scores 0%.

  3. Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Theoria rewrites solutions into auditable typed state transitions with justifications, certifying 105 of 185 HLE problems at 91.4% precision and outperforming holistic judges on adversarial poisoned proofs by catching...

  4. Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities

    cs.CL 2024-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A layered Mixture-of-Agents system combining multiple LLMs achieves state-of-the-art results on AlpacaEval 2.0 (65.1%), MT-Bench, and FLASK, outperforming GPT-4 Omni.

  5. Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2023-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Chain-of-Verification reduces hallucinations in large language models by drafting responses, planning independent verification questions, answering them separately, and generating a final verified output.