PiCSAR: Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21787v1
• Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 17:03:47 GMT
• Title: PiCSAR: Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking
• Abstract summary: Key challenge for reasoning tasks is designing a scoring function that can identify correct reasoning chains without access to ground-truth answers.<n>We propose Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking (PiCSAR), a training-free method that scores each candidate generation using the joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer.<n>Our analysis reveals that correct reasoning chains exhibit significantly higher reasoning and answer confidence, justifying the effectiveness of PiCSAR.
• Score: 46.51719514052471
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Best-of-n sampling improves the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) by generating multiple candidate solutions and selecting the one with the highest reward. The key challenge for reasoning tasks is designing a scoring function that can identify correct reasoning chains without access to ground-truth answers. We propose Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking (PiCSAR): a simple, training-free method that scores each candidate generation using the joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer. The joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer naturally decomposes into reasoning confidence and answer confidence. PiCSAR achieves substantial gains across diverse benchmarks (+10.18 on MATH500, +9.81 on AIME2025), outperforming baselines with at least 2x fewer samples in 16 out of 20 comparisons. Our analysis reveals that correct reasoning chains exhibit significantly higher reasoning and answer confidence, justifying the effectiveness of PiCSAR.

Related papers

• When Many Answers Are Valid, Voting Fails: Symbolic Verification for Best-of-K Causal Reasoning in LLMs [42.32694162421078]
  We introduce CALVER, a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria.<n>On CLEAR find-one-valid queries that admit multiple graph-valid answers, CALVER reaches 42.1% where plurality, a reward model, an LLM judge, and model confidence remain near 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T11:45:46Z)
• Learning When to Sample: Confidence-Aware Self-Consistency for Efficient LLM Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [7.8668388431725695]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance through chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Recent self-consistency-based approaches further improve accuracy but require sampling and aggregating multiple reasoning trajectories.<n>This paper introduces a confidence-aware decision framework that analyzes a single completed reasoning trajectory to adaptively select between single-path and multi-path reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T22:34:06Z)
• A Single Revision Step Improves Token-Efficient LLM Reasoning [3.344806691289323]
  We introduce Packet-Conditioned Revision (PACER), a training-free, inference-only framework for large language models.<n>PACER enables reasoning traces to revise their conclusions through a structured coordination step.<n>On challenging competitive math benchmarks, PACER matches or exceeds the accuracy of 256-sample majority voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T21:28:42Z)
• Reasoning Planning for Language Models [23.519351730129426]
  We introduce EPIC, an Ensemble Planning with Contrastive learning framework.<n>EPIC learns a shared representation space that captures both model reasoning abilities and query-method compatibility.<n> Experiments on diverse mathematical reasoning tasks show that EPIC consistently selects optimal reasoning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-01T11:51:53Z)
• 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)
• Sample Smart, Not Hard: Correctness-First Decoding for Better Reasoning in LLMs [72.82403830490084]
  We argue that the decoding rule should be calibrated by correctness, not confidence alone.<n>We propose simple strategies that achieve this goal: Greedy-Threshold makes sampling greedy at very low confidence steps.<n>Together, our findings challenge prevailings about decoding under uncertainty and show gains across math and general reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T14:46:12Z)
• The Majority is not always right: RL training for solution aggregation [53.1050856072799]
  We train an aggregator model to review, reconcile, and synthesize a final, correct answer.<n>A key ingredient is careful balancing of easy and hard training examples.<n>We find our method, AggLM, outperforms both strong rule-based and reward-model baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T16:39:38Z)
• Self-Aligned Reward: Towards Effective and Efficient Reasoners [16.740993145927774]
  Self-aligned reward (SAR) is a self-guided signal that complements verifiable rewards to encourage both reasoning accuracy and efficiency.<n>We show that SAR reliably distinguishes answer quality: concise, correct answers score higher than redundant ones, and partially correct answers score higher than entirely incorrect ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T20:39:43Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Beyond the Last Answer: Your Reasoning Trace Uncovers More than You Think [51.0691253204425]
  We analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, to answer two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion?<n>Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues.<n>We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T12:39:07Z)
• Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty [65.31658824274894]
  Best-of-N selection is a key technique for improving the reasoning performance of Large Language Models.<n>We propose self-certainty, a novel and efficient metric to estimate response quality without requiring external reward models.<n>Our findings establish self-certainty as a practical and efficient way for improving LLM reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T19:08:07Z)
• Rationale-Aware Answer Verification by Pairwise Self-Evaluation [11.763229353978321]
  We show that training reliable verifiers requires ensuring the validity of rationales in addition to the correctness of the final answers. Our results suggest that training reliable verifiers requires ensuring the validity of rationales in addition to the correctness of the final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T08:53:00Z)
• DCR: Divide-and-Conquer Reasoning for Multi-choice Question Answering with LLMs [9.561022942046279]
  We propose Divide and Conquer Reasoning (DCR) to enhance the reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs) We first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($mathcalCS$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers. In particular, we first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($mathcalCS$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T14:38:46Z)
• Improving Selective Visual Question Answering by Learning from Your Peers [74.20167944693424]
  Visual Question Answering (VQA) models can have difficulties abstaining from answering when they are wrong. We propose Learning from Your Peers (LYP) approach for training multimodal selection functions for making abstention decisions. Our approach uses predictions from models trained on distinct subsets of the training data as targets for optimizing a Selective VQA model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T21:22:01Z)

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.