REVIEW 4 cited by
Multidimensional Consistency Improves Reasoning in Language Models
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
read the original abstract
While Large language models (LLMs) have proved able to address some complex reasoning tasks, we also know that they are highly sensitive to input variation, which can lead to different solution paths and final answers. Answer consistency across input variations can thus be taken as a sign of stronger confidence. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a framework, {\em Multidimensional Reasoning Consistency} where, focusing on math problems, models are systematically pushed to diversify solution paths towards a final answer, thereby testing them for answer consistency across multiple input variations. We induce variations in (i) order of shots in prompt, (ii) problem phrasing, and (iii) languages used. Extensive experiments on a large range of open-source state-of-the-art LLMs of various sizes show that reasoning consistency differs by variation dimension, and that by aggregating consistency across dimensions, our framework consistently enhances mathematical reasoning performance on both monolingual dataset GSM8K and multilingual dataset MGSM, especially for smaller models.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Less Languages, Less Tokens: An Efficient Unified Logic Cross-lingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Framework
UL-XCoT maintains competitive accuracy on multilingual benchmarks while cutting decoding tokens by over 50% through per-query language selection and logic-space trajectory pruning.
-
Implicit Reasoning Steering via Concept Chaining
Reinforcement-learning-optimized concept-chain paragraphs covertly steer language-model multiple-choice preferences after continued pretraining, with far lower detectability than direct paraphrases.
-
When to Vote, When to Rewrite: Disagreement-Guided Strategy Routing for Test-Time Scaling
A disagreement-guided routing framework dynamically selects among resolution, voting, and rewriting strategies for test-time scaling, delivering 3-7% accuracy gains with lower sampling cost on mathematical benchmarks.
-
When to Vote, When to Rewrite: Disagreement-Guided Strategy Routing for Test-Time Scaling
A disagreement-based router that decides per math problem whether to accept, majority-vote, or rewrite improves accuracy by 3–7% with fewer samples than fixed test-time scaling methods.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.