Forward-Backward Reasoning in Large Language Models for Mathematical Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07758v6
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 03:37:35 GMT
• Title: Forward-Backward Reasoning in Large Language Models for Mathematical Verification
• Abstract summary: Self-Consistency samples diverse reasoning chains with answers and chooses the final answer by majority voting. We introduce backward reasoning to verify candidate answers. FOrward and BAckward Reasoning for verification achieves state-of-the-art performance.
• Score: 65.9495774606273
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Self-Consistency samples diverse reasoning chains with answers and chooses the final answer by majority voting. It is based on forward reasoning and cannot further improve performance by sampling more reasoning chains when saturated. To further boost performance, we introduce backward reasoning to verify candidate answers. Specifically, for mathematical tasks, we mask a number in the question and ask the LLM to answer a backward question created by a simple template, i.e., to predict the masked number when a candidate answer is provided. Instead of using forward or backward reasoning alone, we propose FOBAR to combine FOrward and BAckward Reasoning for verification. Extensive experiments on six standard mathematical data sets and three LLMs show that FOBAR achieves state-of-the-art performance. In particular, FOBAR outperforms Self-Consistency, which uses forward reasoning alone, demonstrating that combining forward and forward reasoning is better. In addition, FOBAR performs better than existing verification methods, showing the effectiveness of the simple template used in backward reasoning and the proposed combination. Extensions to non-mathematical problems are also discussed and validated empirically.

Related papers

• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• Learning to Reason in LLMs by Expectation Maximization [55.721496945401846]
  We formalize reasoning as a latent variable model and derive an expectation-maximization objective for learning to reason.<n>This view connects EM and modern reward-based optimization, and shows that the main challenge lies in designing a sampling distribution that generates rationales that justify correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:56:49Z)
• Answer-Consistent Chain-of-thought Reinforcement Learning For Multi-modal Large Langauge Models [33.398631680508814]
  We propose Answer-Consistent Reinforcement Learning that modifies the GRPO algorithm with an auxiliary consistency check.<n>We design a consistency-verification reward that grants a high reward only if both the original and the post-shuffle answers agree and are correct.<n>We evaluate ACRE on challenging Video Reasoning benchmarks and multimodal math reasoning benchmarks, achieving an average 2.2% and 1.5% improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T08:32:52Z)
• Revisiting Overthinking in Long Chain-of-Thought from the Perspective of Self-Doubt [74.35891434097053]
  Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks.<n>They often exhibit overthinking -- performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after arriving at the correct answer.<n>We present a quantitative analysis of overthinking from the perspective of self-doubt.<n>We introduce a simple and effective prompting method to reduce the model's over-reliance on input questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T14:30:02Z)
• CounterBench: A Benchmark for Counterfactuals Reasoning in Large Language Models [5.409370027524351]
  We evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in counterfactual reasoning. We introduce a new benchmark dataset, CounterBench, comprising 1K counterfactual reasoning questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T06:19:37Z)
• Reverse Thinking Makes LLMs Stronger Reasoners [90.42357659849215]
  RevThink is a framework composed of data augmentation and learning objectives. Experiments across 12 datasets show an average 13.53% improvement over the student model's zero-shot performance. RevThink also exhibits strong generalization to out-of-distribution held-out datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T17:27:05Z)
• Aggregation of Reasoning: A Hierarchical Framework for Enhancing Answer Selection in Large Language Models [84.15513004135576]
  Current research enhances the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning chains and ensembling based on the answer frequency. This approach fails in scenarios where the correct answers are in the minority. We introduce a hierarchical reasoning aggregation framework AoR, which selects answers based on the evaluation of reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T17:12:19Z)
• Premise Order Matters in Reasoning with Large Language Models [57.18850969634412]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) are surprisingly brittle to the ordering of the premises. We observe that LLMs achieve the best performance when the premise order aligns with the context required in intermediate reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T04:50:18Z)
• On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks [17.329365493094542]
  We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT-4 in three domains: Game of 24, Graph Coloring, and STRIPS planning. We observe significant performance collapse with self-critique and significant performance gains with sound external verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T23:11:01Z)
• Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning [23.34325378824462]
  Large language models (LLMs) are difficult to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior. One approach is to prompt LLMs to externalize their reasoning, by having them generate step-by-step reasoning as they answer a question. This approach relies on the stated reasoning faithfully reflecting the model's actual reasoning, which is not always the case. Decomposition-based methods achieve strong performance on question-answering tasks, sometimes approaching that of CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T00:54:10Z)
• Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification [48.534270563880845]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning ability in several natural language processing tasks. LLMs with chain of thought (CoT) prompting require multi-step prompting and multi-token prediction, which is highly sensitive to individual mistakes. We propose and prove that LLMs also have similar self-verification abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T15:51:52Z)
• Complexity-Based Prompting for Multi-Step Reasoning [72.0057198610614]
  We study the task of prompting large-scale language models to perform multi-step reasoning. A central question is which reasoning examples make the most effective prompts. We propose complexity-based prompting, a simple and effective example selection scheme for multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-03T05:33:27Z)
• Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models [12.132449274592668]
  We show how LMs can be made to perform faithful multi-step reasoning via a process whose causal structure mirrors the underlying logical structure of the problem. Our approach works by chaining together reasoning steps, where each step results from calls to two fine-tuned LMs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model on multi-step logical deduction and scientific question-answering, showing that it outperforms baselines on final answer accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T13:44:41Z)
• Generative Context Pair Selection for Multi-hop Question Answering [60.74354009152721]
  We propose a generative context selection model for multi-hop question answering. Our proposed generative passage selection model has a better performance (4.9% higher than baseline) on adversarial held-out set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-18T07:00:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.