Refining Answer Distributions for Improved Large Language Model Reasoning

Didier Ch\'etelat; Mark Coates; Soumyasundar Pal; Yingxue Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Refining Answer Distributions for Improved Large Language Model Reasoning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By refining the entire distribution over answers—feeding each previous answer back to the LLM as a hint and weighting the responses by their prior probability—RAD shifts probability mass toward the correct answer and beats…

desk verdict Empirically useful distribution-refinement method with a theory section that overclaims: the flow condition proves one step, not monotonicity across iterations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13292 v2 pith:JBS5XQMA submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CL

Soumyasundar Pal , Didier Chételat , Yingxue Zhang , Mark Coates This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords refinedanswerdistributionsiterativerefinementself-consistencychain-of-thoughtpromptingprobabilityflowconditionhint-basedLLMreasoningMonteCarlodistribution

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents Refined Answer Distributions (RAD), a way to improve LLM reasoning that refines the whole distribution of answers rather than individual chains of thought. Each round feeds every distinct answer from the previous round back to the LLM as a hint and then marginalizes the refined responses, weighting each by the probability that the hinted answer was correct. The paper argues that if a 'probability flow' condition holds, the probability of the correct answer grows with each round, so the mode of the refined distribution is more likely to be right. On arithmetic, MATH, and BIG-Bench Hard tasks spanning five LLMs, RAD variants are reported to achieve the highest accuracy in 30 of 36 scenarios compared with self-consistency, progressive-hint prompting, and their combinations, using the same number of LLM calls.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sequence of refined answer distributions $p_r(\tilde{y}|x)$ together with the marginalization formula in Eq. (1), implemented as a weighted Monte Carlo update. At iteration $r$, the empirical distribution is represented as weighted point masses on the distinct answers seen so far; each distinct answer $y_m$ is inserted into the prompt as a hint, a budget of refinement samples is drawn from $p(\tilde{y}|x,\mathrm{Refine}(y_m))$, and the new distribution is obtained by pooling those samples with weights $\omega_m$ equal to the estimated probability of $y_m$ under $p_r$. The named 'probability flow' condition is what gives the update its power: it guarantees that more probability flows into the correct answer from refinements of wrong answers than flows out of it, so the mode can move toward the truth over rounds. The implementation uses the hint-based prompting of Zheng et al. (2023) as the refinement kernel.

What would settle it

Compute, on a held-out reasoning benchmark, the empirical refinement probabilities $p(\tilde{y}=y\mid x,\mathrm{Refine}(y))$ and $p(\tilde{y}=y\mid x,\mathrm{Refine}(y'))$ for true answers $y$ and wrong hints $y'$; if the first is not close to 1 for a substantial fraction of questions, or the second falls below the constant-fraction lower bound, then the paper's predicted monotone rise in correct-answer probability will fail on exactly those questions, and a majority of such failures would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that iterating the update $p_{r+1}(\tilde{y}|x)=\int p(\tilde{y}|x,\mathrm{Refine}(y'))\,p_r(y'|x)\,dy'$ concentrates probability mass on the true answer $y$ as $r$ grows, provided the LLM's refinement behavior satisfies the 'probability flow' condition of Section 3.1. Informally, handing the model the correct answer as a hint must keep it correct with high probability, and handing it a wrong answer must still leave a constant fraction of the chance of recovering the correct answer; under that condition the inflow of mass to $y$ from refinements of wrong answers exceeds the outflow from refining $y$ itself. Because the correct-answer probability rises, the mode of $p_r$ is a better estimator than the mode of the original chain-of-thought distribution, and the final answer is the mode of a Monte Carlo approximation to $p_R$. The experimental section reports that this mechanism holds broadly: out of 36 model and dataset scenarios, the RAD variants attain the highest accuracy in 30.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's convergence claim rests on the unproven 'probability flow' condition: when the LLM is prompted with the correct answer as a hint it must answer correctly almost always, and when prompted with a wrong answer it must still produce the correct answer with probability at least a constant times the initial correct-answer probability; if that condition gives way, the recursive update can concentrate mass on a wrong answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If RAD is correct, the self-consistency plateau is not a sampling-budget limit but a distributional one: later LLM calls spent on refining distinct answers redistribute probability mass and raise accuracy beyond what 40-sample voting achieves.
RAD can be initialized from CoT or from progressive-hint prompting, so it is an orthogonal layer that can be stacked on other prompting techniques without redesigning their prompts.
With the same LLM-call budget, RAD improves accuracy on hard questions: on GSM8K with GPT-3.5 Turbo, CoT+RAD reaches 87.5% versus 83.2% for CoT+SC.
On the MATH dataset, PHP+RAD improves accuracy in 5 of 7 subdisciplines over CoT+SC while costing about 2.9 cents per question versus 2.5 cents for CoT+SC.
For 'difficult' questions across the arithmetic benchmarks, RAD more often assigns the highest probability to the true answer than CoT+SC or PHP+SC, and the increase from $p_1(y|x)$ to $p_3(y|x)$ is statistically significant in 31 of 36 comparisons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Reading Eq. (1) as a linear map, $p(\tilde{y}|x,\mathrm{Refine}(y'))$ is a stochastic kernel over answers, so RAD is iterating a Markov chain on the answer space; Markov-chain convergence rates and stationary-mode conditions could be imported to predict when refinement will help.
The 'probability flow' condition is a property of the LLM-plus-prompt pair, not of the answer set, so one could screen candidate refinement prompts on a labeled validation set before deployment and only run RAD when the condition is empirically satisfied.
The paper allocates refinement samples uniformly across distinct previous answers; concentrating samples on high-weight answers would likely reduce the variance of the mode estimate, since the Monte Carlo error is dominated by answers with large $\omega_m$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about arXiv:2412.13292. First, the empirical claim is real: RAD improves reasoning accuracy over CoT+SC and PHP+SC across a wide set of benchmarks and models, with a fair budget comparison and statistical tests. Second, the theoretical justification in Section 3.1 is weaker than the paper suggests—the stated probability-flow condition suffices only for one refinement step, not for the repeated iterations that the algorithm uses.

The genuinely new idea here is maintaining a full distribution over answers and updating it by weighted marginalization over refinement samples. That is not present in the prior self-consistency or hinting work. The experiments are broad: 36 scenarios, five models, arithmetic plus MATH and two Big-Bench Hard tasks, with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on the main comparisons. The 'difficult questions' analysis is a nice touch that supports the claim that RAD helps exactly where sampling-based methods struggle. They were also careful about matching LLM-call budgets with PHP+SC. Given the same budget, RAD wins 30 of 36 scenarios. That is a solid empirical contribution.

The soft spot is the theory. The probability-flow condition in Section 3.1, p(y|x,Refine(y)) > 1 - c(1-p1(y|x)) with inflow bounded by c p1, proves p2(y) > p1(y). It does not prove p3 > p2 or monotonicity generally. The stress-test example is correct: as p_r(y) grows, the required q(y) gets steeper, and a kernel that passes the one-step test can decrease mass at the next iteration. The paper asserts repeated application is 'further advantageous' and runs R=3, but the stated condition does not guarantee it. The empirical p3-vs-p1 comparison in Tables 6-7 is not the same as checking consecutive iterations; it can hide a non-monotone path where the second round erodes part of the first round's gain.

Also minor: the flow condition is verified only on the same benchmarks used for the accuracy claim, which limits the strength of that evidence. No code is released, and there is no sensitivity analysis for the budget split (B1, B2, B3) or the constant c.

Bottom line: the method works empirically and the distribution-refinement formulation is worth attention. The theory needs to be corrected or explicitly weakened to a one-step guarantee, and the authors should either prove the iteration bound or replace the assertion with empirical evidence on consecutive distributions. This deserves a proper referee, not a desk reject. I would cite it for the method, not the theory.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Refined Answer Distributions (RAD), an iterative refinement framework in which a distribution over candidate answers is updated by marginalizing over previous-round answers: p_{r+1}(y|x) = ∫ p(y|x, Refine(y')) p_r(y'|x) dy' (Eq. 1). The authors give an intuitive one-step 'probability flow' argument in Section 3.1, a Monte Carlo implementation in Section 3.2 and Appendix A, and an extensive empirical evaluation on six arithmetic benchmarks, MATH, and two BIG-Bench Hard tasks with five LLMs. RAD variants are reported to achieve the highest accuracy in 30 of 36 scenarios, and additional analyses (Figures 3-5, Tables 6-7) are used to support the claim that RAD increases the probability of the correct answer relative to initialization.

Significance. If the empirical finding holds, RAD is a useful and simple addition to the toolbox for LLM reasoning: it reuses the refinement prompt of Progressive Hint Prompting but maintains a distribution and marginalizes over previous answers, which is a clean and budget-matched way to go beyond self-consistency. The experimental breadth is a genuine strength: five models, several benchmarks, a controlled LLM-call budget, and Wilcoxon tests on the top-two comparisons. The main weakness is that the theoretical narrative in Section 3.1 is not established for multiple iterations, and the empirical verification of the governing condition is indirect. Since the central contribution is primarily empirical, the paper is salvageable with a corrected or weakened theoretical claim and a direct test of the underlying condition.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The probability-flow condition stated in Section 3.1 is sufficient for a single update only, and the text's assertion that 'repeated application of this procedure is further advantageous' is not justified by that condition. Let q(y)=p(y|x,Refine(y)), and suppose p(y|x,Refine(y')) ≥ c p1(y|x) for all y'≠y. For iteration r, the lower bound is p_{r+1}(y) ≥ q(y)p_r(y) + c p1(y|x)(1-p_r(y)), so p_{r+1}(y) ≥ p_r(y) requires q(y) ≥ 1 - c p1(y|x)(1-p_r(y))/p_r(y). As p_r(y) grows, the required q becomes stricter; with the paper's own values p1(y)=0.4 and c=0.3, the one-step threshold is 0.82, but if the first step yields p2(y)=0.56 (as in the paper's illustration), the same kernel would need q(y) ≥ 0.906 for the second step to increase mass. The empirical comparison in Tables 6-7 is between p3(y|x) and p1(y|x), not between consecutive distributions, so it cannot establish monotonicity across iterations. The authors should either prove a condition that is uniform in r, weaken the theoretical claim to one update, or report comparisons of pr+1 with pr for each r; this matters directly because the default algorithm runs R=3 iterations.
[Section 3.2 (Discussion) and Appendix E, Tables 6-7] The claim that the hint-based prompt 'satisfies the probability flow criterion' is not verified by the evidence presented. The criterion is a statement about the conditional refinement distributions q(y)=p(y|x,Refine(y)) and p(y|x,Refine(y')) for incorrect y', but Tables 6-7 and Figures 4-5 report p3(y|x) versus p1(y|x), which are the very quantities the method is intended to increase. This is an indirect check at best: a large p3-vs-p1 gain could occur even if the per-step condition fails, and a small gain could occur even if the condition holds. A direct test would estimate q(y) and the inflow probabilities on held-out questions (or at least on a separate partition) and check the inequality of Section 3.1 pointwise or in aggregate. Please either provide such a test or explicitly re-label the current analysis as evidence about the final outcome rather than about the flow condition.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (1) and Algorithm 1] The recursion in Eq. (1) implicitly assumes a Markov property: the distribution of the refined answer depends only on the previous answer y' and not on the earlier history, such as whether the same hint has already been shown in a previous round or what chain of thought preceded it. This assumption is not stated, and the implementation in Algorithm 1 samples from p(·|x,Refine(ym)) using only the immediately previous answer. If history matters, the Monte Carlo estimator in Eqs. (4)-(5) is not an unbiased estimator of the marginal pr+1 defined by the true refinement process. The authors should state this assumption explicitly and, if possible, test it, for example by comparing the outcome distribution of a second-round refinement given the same hint y' with and without an intermediate different hint.

minor comments (4)

[Table 4 (Appendix C)] The table header 'Llama-3-70b-intruct' contains a typo and should read 'Llama-3-70b-instruct'.
[Algorithm 1 (Appendix A)] The mode assignment in line 14 is placed inside the r loop and refers to p_R even though R is the total number of iterations; move the mode assignment after the loop or index it by r.
[Table 6 caption] The caption says the test is 'for the difficult questions (for the entire dataset)', but each cell contains two p-values; please explain in the caption what the parenthetical values represent.
[Section 4, experimental setting] The phrase '3'rd decimal rounding off' should be 'third decimal rounding'; also, the statement that RAD has 'comparable token cost' would be easier to assess if actual token counts or API costs were reported in the main experiments as they are for the MATH dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RAD update rule is a definition, its sufficient condition is assumed rather than derived from the target outcome, and the accuracy claims are measured against external baselines.

full rationale

The central update, pr+1(˜y|x) = ∫ p(˜y|x, Refine(y′)) pr(y′|x) dy′ (Eq. 1), is a definition of a new distribution in terms of the previous distribution and the LLM refinement kernel; it is not defined in terms of the quantity the paper aims to predict (answer correctness or mode accuracy). The 'probability flow' condition in Section 3.1 is explicitly presented as an assumption ('Let us assume that p(˜y=y|x, Refine(y′)) > cp1(˜y=y|x)'), with a worked numerical example illustrating that the mass of the correct answer can increase. No parameter is fitted to the benchmark answers and then renamed as a prediction: the algorithm estimates p1 and the refinement conditional distributions by Monte Carlo sampling, then computes the marginalization in Eq. 4-5. The empirical support in Appendix E compares p3(y|x) with p1(y|x) on the evaluation benchmarks, which is an aggregate consequence of the RAD iterates rather than a direct estimate of the kernel condition; even if this check is weaker than testing the per-iteration monotonicity claimed in Section 3.1, that is a limitation of supporting evidence, not a case where the conclusion is assumed by construction. The headline accuracy results are obtained against external baselines (CoT, CoT+SC, PHP, PHP+SC, Self-Refine, CRITIC, Self-Convinced, Multi-Agent Debate, ReConcile, Self-Verification, FOBAR, MACM) on standard public benchmarks (AddSub, MultiArith, SingleEQ, SVAMP, GSM8K, AQuA, MATH, BIG-Bench Hard), so the central empirical claim is self-contained and does not reduce to the paper's own definitions. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: the refinement prompt is attributed to Zheng et al. (2023), and no uniqueness or ansatz result from the present authors is invoked to force the method. The reviewer-style objection that the stated flow condition does not establish monotonicity for r > 1 is a correctness or rigor concern, not a circularity concern, and therefore does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or model entities. The key assumptions are the existence and stability of the LLM's conditional distributions, the probability flow condition, and the Markov property. These are domain assumptions about LLM behavior, not fitted parameters. The sampling budgets are hand-picked and could affect results.

free parameters (3)

Sampling budget split (B1, B2, B3) = (5, 15, 20)
Hand-chosen with more samples in later iterations; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
Total sampling budget Bmax = 40
Set to match the 40 CoT samples of CoT+SC for comparability.
Constant c in probability flow condition = Illustrative only (c = 0.3)
Introduced in Section 3.1 as a parameter of the sufficient condition; not measured or fitted, but it illustrates the nature of the assumption.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The LLM's answer distribution p(y|x, Refine(y')) exists and is stable across independent calls given the same prompt.
The entire Monte Carlo framework in Section 3.2 treats LLM responses as samples from a fixed conditional distribution.
domain assumption The probability flow condition holds: p(y|x, Refine(y)) is close to 1 and p(y|x, Refine(y')) > c p1(y|x) for all y'.
Stated in Section 3.1 as a sufficient condition for the mode to move toward the correct answer; not proven.
ad hoc to paper The Markov property in Eq. 1: the outcome of refining y' depends only on y' and not on earlier history.
The recursion pr+1 = ∫ p(y|x, Refine(y')) pr(y') dy' assumes this conditional independence, which is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Refining Answer Distributions for Improved Large Language Model Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBS5XQMA

@misc{pith2026241213292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Refining Answer Distributions for Improved Large Language Model Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBS5XQMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13292}
}

read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited an impressive capability to perform reasoning tasks, especially if they are encouraged to generate a sequence of intermediate steps. Reasoning performance can be improved by suitably combining multiple LLM responses, generated either in parallel in a single query, or via sequential interactions with LLMs throughout the reasoning process. Existing strategies for combination, such as self-consistency and progressive-hint-prompting, make inefficient usage of the LLM responses. We present Refined Answer Distributions, a novel and principled algorithmic framework to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Our approach can be viewed as an iterative sampling strategy for forming a Monte Carlo approximation of an underlying distribution of answers, with the goal of identifying the mode -- the most likely answer. Empirical evaluation on several reasoning benchmarks demonstrates the superiority of the proposed approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13292 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The estimated probabilities of different answers from CoT+SC, PHP+SC, and CoT+RAD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Histogram of ranks of the algorithms (the highest probability of the correct answer results in the lowest rank) for the ‘difficult’ questions from all six arithmetic datasets using GPT-4omini. rank based on the probability of correct answer across all ‘difficult’ questions for all datasets more often, outperforming both CoT+SC and PHP+SC. This demonstrates that CoT+RAD has higher probability of the correct answer c… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Histogram of ranks of the algorithms (the highest probability of the correct answer results in the lowest rank) for the ‘difficult’ questions from all six arithmetic datasets using GPT-3.5 Turbo. In order to demonstrate the statistical significance of the increase in p…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Histogram of ranks of the algorithms (the highest probability of the correct answer results in the lowest rank) for the ‘difficult’ questions from all six arithmetic datasets using GPT-4 Turbo. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[2]

Besta, N

M. Besta, N. Blach, A. Kubicek, R. Gerstenberger, L. Gianinazzi, J. Gajda, T. Lehmann, M. Pod- stawski, H. Niewiadomski, P. Nyczyk, and T. Hoefler. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2308.09687,

arXiv
[4]

Z. Chu, J. Chen, Q. Chen, W. Yu, T. He, H. Wang, W. Peng, M. Liu, B. Qin, and T. Liu. A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future. arXiv preprint arxiv:2309.15402,

arXiv
[5]

Cobbe, V

K. Cobbe, V . Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

arXiv
[6]

Table 8: Example problem from Zheng et al. (2023). Q: There are 15 trees in the grove. Grove workers will plant trees in the grove today. After they are done, there will be 21 trees. How many trees did the grove workers plant today? A: There are 21 trees in the Grove today. Grove workers are done planting trees. So 21 trees were planted in the Grove. Tabl...

work page 2023
[7]

J. Fu, S. Huangfu, H. Yan, S.-K. Ng, and X. Qiu. Hint-before-solving prompting: Guiding LLMs to effectively utilize encoded knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14310,

arXiv
[8]

Z. Gou, Z. Shao, Y . Gong, Y . Shen, Y . Yang, N. Duan, and W. Chen. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11738,

arXiv
[9]

Grattafiori, A

A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan, A. Yang, A. Fan, A. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, A. Yang, A. Mitra, A. Sra- vankumar, A. Korenev, A. Hinsvark, A. Rao, A. Zhang, A. Rodriguez, A. Gregerson, A. Spataru, B. Roziere, B. Biron, B. Tang, B. Chern, C. Caucheteux, C. Nayak, C. Bi, C. M...

arXiv 2025
[11]

Achiam, S

OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Al- tenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, R. Avila, I. Babuschkin, S. Balaji, V . Balcom, P. Baltescu, H. Bao, M. Bavarian, J. Belgum, I. Bello, J. Berdine, G. Bernadett-Shapiro, C. Berner, L. Bog- donoff, O. Boiko, M. Boyd, A.-L. Brakman, G. Brockman, T. Brooks, M. Br...

arXiv 2025

Show all 27 references

[12]

D. Paul, M. Ismayilzada, M. Peyrard, B. Borges, A. Bosselut, R. West, and B. Faltings. Refiner: Reasoning feedback on intermediate representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01904,

arXiv
[14]

Srivastava, A

A. Srivastava, A. Rastogi, A. Rao, A. A. M. Shoeb, A. Abid, A. Fisch, A. R. Brown, A. San- toro, A. Gupta, A. Garriga-Alonso, A. Kluska, A. Lewkowycz, A. Agarwal, A. Power, A. Ray, A. Warstadt, A. W. Kocurek, A. Safaya, A. Tazarv, A. Xiang, A. Parrish, A. Nie, A. Hussain, A. A...

2025
[15]

G. Tyen, H. Mansoor, P. Chen, T. Mak, and V . C˘arbune. LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them! arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08516,

arXiv
[16]

J. Wei, Y . Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler, et al. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022a. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou,...

arXiv
[17]

13 Published at ICLR 2025 Workshop on Reasoning and Planning for LLMs S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.10601,

2025 arXiv
[18]

W. Yao, S. Heinecke, J. C. Niebles, Z. Liu, Y . Feng, L. Xue, R. Murthy, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, D. Arpit, et al. Retroformer: Retrospective large language agents with policy gradient optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02151,

arXiv
[19]

Zelikman, Y

E. Zelikman, Y . Wu, J. Mu, and N. D. Goodman. STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.14465,

arXiv
[22]

Date Understanding

consists of 23 difficult tasks from the BIG-Bench suite (Srivastava et al., 2023), where previous large language models did not surpass the average human performance. We focus on the “Date Understanding” and “Object Tracking” tasks, which require quantitative 14 Published at I...

2023
[23]

In order to reduce the API cost of the experiments, we restrict running the more expensive 70B model to only the three most difficult benchmarks

C E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS USING LLAMA MODELS We have conducted experiments with two Llama-family LLMs: the weaker Llama-3-8b-instruct and the very capable Llama-3-70b-instruct. In order to reduce the API cost of the experiments, we restrict running the more expensive 70B model t...

2025
[24]

We observe that in each case, for the majority of the questions, RAD iterations do not decrease the probability of the true answer. a) AddSub b) MultiArith c) SingleEQ d) SV AMP e) GSM8K f) AQuA Figure 5: Histogram of ranks of the algorithms (the highest probability of the cor...

2025
[26]

The base examples are taken from Zheng et al

As CoT+SC and PHP+SC are simply sampled versions of CoT and PHP, the prompts are identical as in those cases. The base examples are taken from Zheng et al. (2023). 17 Published at ICLR 2025 Workshop on Reasoning and Planning for LLMs Table 10: An example of a CoT prompt with 4...

2023
[27]

For Christmas, he got two toys each from his mom and dad

Q: Shawn has five toys. For Christmas, he got two toys each from his mom and dad. How many toys does he have now? (Hint: The answer is near to 7, 11, 8). A: 18 Published at ICLR 2025 Workshop on Reasoning and Planning for LLMs Table 12: An example of a CoT+RAD prompt with 4 fe...

2025
[2015]

Saparov and H

A. Saparov and H. He. Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01240,

arXiv
[2017]

Although these arithmetic problems in the previous benchmarks are relatively simple for humans, LLMs often struggle in solving these types of problems (Patel et al., 2021)

(254 algebraic word problems). Although these arithmetic problems in the previous benchmarks are relatively simple for humans, LLMs often struggle in solving these types of problems (Patel et al., 2021). In addition, we also conduct experiments on considerably harder MATH (Hen...

2021
[2020]

Chih-Yao Chen, S

J. Chih-Yao Chen, S. Saha, and M. Bansal. ReConcile: Round-table conference improves reasoning via consensus among diverse LLMs. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.13007,

arXiv
[2021]

Y . Du, S. Li, A. Torralba, J. B. Tenenbaum, and I. Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.14325,

arXiv
[2022]

Zhang, M

H. Zhang, M. Cai, X. Zhang, C. J. Zhang, R. Mao, and K. Wu. Self-convinced prompting: Few-shot question answering with repeated introspection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05035, 2023a. Z. Zhang, A. Zhang, M. Li, and A. Smola. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large languag...

arXiv
[2023]

A. F. Aky¨urek, E. Aky ¨urek, A. Madaan, A. Kalyan, P. Clark, D. Wijaya, and N. Tandon. RL4F: Generating natural language feedback with reinforcement learning for repairing model outputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08844,

arXiv
[2024]

B. Li, R. Wang, J. Guo, K. Song, X. Tan, H. Hassan, A. Menezes, T. Xiao, J. Bian, and J. Zhu. Deliberate then generate: Enhanced prompting framework for text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19835,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

Besta, N

M. Besta, N. Blach, A. Kubicek, R. Gerstenberger, L. Gianinazzi, J. Gajda, T. Lehmann, M. Pod- stawski, H. Niewiadomski, P. Nyczyk, and T. Hoefler. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2308.09687,

arXiv

[2] [4]

Z. Chu, J. Chen, Q. Chen, W. Yu, T. He, H. Wang, W. Peng, M. Liu, B. Qin, and T. Liu. A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future. arXiv preprint arxiv:2309.15402,

arXiv

[3] [5]

Cobbe, V

K. Cobbe, V . Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

arXiv

[4] [6]

Table 8: Example problem from Zheng et al. (2023). Q: There are 15 trees in the grove. Grove workers will plant trees in the grove today. After they are done, there will be 21 trees. How many trees did the grove workers plant today? A: There are 21 trees in the Grove today. Grove workers are done planting trees. So 21 trees were planted in the Grove. Tabl...

work page 2023

[5] [7]

J. Fu, S. Huangfu, H. Yan, S.-K. Ng, and X. Qiu. Hint-before-solving prompting: Guiding LLMs to effectively utilize encoded knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14310,

arXiv

[6] [8]

Z. Gou, Z. Shao, Y . Gong, Y . Shen, Y . Yang, N. Duan, and W. Chen. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11738,

arXiv

[7] [9]

Grattafiori, A

A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan, A. Yang, A. Fan, A. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, A. Yang, A. Mitra, A. Sra- vankumar, A. Korenev, A. Hinsvark, A. Rao, A. Zhang, A. Rodriguez, A. Gregerson, A. Spataru, B. Roziere, B. Biron, B. Tang, B. Chern, C. Caucheteux, C. Nayak, C. Bi, C. M...

arXiv 2025

[8] [11]

Achiam, S

OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Al- tenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, R. Avila, I. Babuschkin, S. Balaji, V . Balcom, P. Baltescu, H. Bao, M. Bavarian, J. Belgum, I. Bello, J. Berdine, G. Bernadett-Shapiro, C. Berner, L. Bog- donoff, O. Boiko, M. Boyd, A.-L. Brakman, G. Brockman, T. Brooks, M. Br...

arXiv 2025