Current Large Language Model reasoning systems process queries independently, discarding valuable cross-instance signals such as shared reasoning patterns and consistency constraints. We introduce Batch-of-Thought (BoT), a training-free method that processes related queries jointly to enable cross-instance learning. By performing comparative analysis across queries, BoT identifies high-quality reasoning templates, detects errors through consistency checks, and amortizes computational costs. We instantiate BoT within a multi-agent reflection architecture (BoT-R), where a Reflector performs joint evaluation to unlock mutual information gain unavailable in isolated processing. Experiments across three model families and six benchmarks demonstrate that BoT-R consistently improves accuracy and confidence calibration while reducing inference costs by up to 61%. Our theoretical and experimental analysis reveals when and why batch-aware reasoning benefits LLM systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/xuanyang19/BoT.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Batch-of-Thought reflection framework. An Actor generates initial responses for a batch of queries. A Reflector then jointly evaluates all responses through comparative analysis, determining whether each should be finalized or refined with feedback.
Model
Method
FraudDet
GPQA
Winogrande
MedQA
PubMedQA
SMS Spam
n=1793
n=448
n=1267
n=1273
n=1000
n=1510
GPT-4o
ReAct
0.685
0.439
0.872
0.878
0.679
0.796
Reflection
0.693
0.459
0.879
0.901
0.667
0.854
BoT-R
0.740 (4)
0.488 (4)
0.890 (8)
0.904 (8)
0.698 (8)
0.887 (8)
Llama-3.3-70B
ReAct
0.635
0.494
0.831
0.783
0.753
0.920
Reflection
0.679
0.504
0.853
0.797
0.755
0.925
Table 1: Performance comparison of reasoning methods across various base models and datasets (number of queries listed as n ). Scores represent accuracy. For BoT-R, the number in parentheses denotes the batch size N∈{4,8} used to obtain the reported result. The best result in each setting is highlighted in bold.
SMS_Spam
GPQA
Winogrande
Method
Cost
Δ%
Cost
Δ%
Cost
Δ%
Actor
Reflection
$3.61
–
$4.70
–
$2.57
–
BoT (4)
$2.41
33.25%
$3.68
21.71%
$2.27
11.75%
BoT (8)
$2.06
42.96%
$3.42
27.24%
$1.99
22.54%
Reflector
Table 2: Total token cost and relative reduction ( Δ% ) for each dataset (GPT-4o). Δ% is computed for BoT(4) and BoT(8) relative to Reflection cost.
Method
SMS_Spam
GPQA
Winogrande
KS↑
ECE↓
KS↑
ECE↓
KS↑
ECE↓
ReAct
0.256
0.176
0.181
0.372
0.273
0.113
Reflection
0.360
0.104
0.265
0.329
0.376
0.035
BoT-R
0.633
0.063
0.368
0.317
0.442
0.013
Table 3: Confidence calibration across datasets (GPT-4o). Each entry reports the KS statistic between the confidence distributions of correct vs. incorrect answers and the ECE score. Higher KS ( ↑ ) is better, while lower ECE ( ↓ ) is better.
Method
med&bio
hum
social
math
sci
ReAct
0.887
0.805
0.915
0.763
0.797
Reflection
0.886
0.825
0.915
0.865
0.843
BoT-R
0.891
0.837
0.922
0.853
0.832
Table 4: MMLU dataset subject-wise accuracy (GPT-4o). The highest score for each subject is in bold.
Dataset
No-batch
Sequential
Semantic
FraudDet
0.693
0.740
0.768
MedQA
0.901
0.904
0.902
PubMedQA
0.667
0.698
0.697
Winogrande
0.879
0.890
0.897
SMS Spam
0.854
0.887
0.902
GPQA
0.459
0.488
0.486
Table 5: Accuracy across batching strategies (GPT-4o). The highest score for each dataset is in bold.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
SMS_Spam
GPQA
Winogrande
In
Out
Cost
Δ %
In
Out
Cost
Δ %
In
Out
Cost
Δ %
Actor
Reflection
105,936
334,429
$3.61
196,763
421,168
$4.70
115,788
228,050
$2.57
BoT (4)
75,838
221,962
$2.41
33.25%
176,381
324,153
$3.68
21.71%
103,757
200,847
$2.27
11.75%
BoT (8)
65,268
189,556
$2.06
42.96%
146,350
305,647
$3.42
27.24%
91,716
176,136
$1.99
22.54%
Reflector
Appendix
Table 6: Input and output token usage and cost across different methods, decomposed into Actor , Reflector , and Total stages (GPT-4o). 1M input tokens cost \2.5and1Moutputtokenscost$10.\Delta%$ is the cost reduction, computed for BoT(4) and BoT(8) relative to Reflection for the same dataset and stage.
Dataset
n
Embed
k -means
GPQA
448
$0.0275
$0.00007
Winogrande
1267
$0.0053
$0.00046
SMS Spam
1510
$0.0103
$0.00066
Formation total (% of BoT(4) token cost)
GPQA
$0.028 (0.53%)
Winogrande
$0.006 (0.14%)
Appendix
Table 7: One-off cost of forming semantically coherent batches. Percentages are taken relative to the corresponding BoT(4) total token cost in Table 2 .
Method
Winogrande
GPQA
Acc
Cost
Acc
Cost
ReAct
87.20
$1.92
43.90
$2.28
+ majority vote ( s=3 )
86.98
$5.71
41.39
$6.75
Reflection
87.90
$5.97
45.90
$7.46
+ majority vote ( s=3 )
88.86
$23.52
46.65
$34.21
BoT-R
89.00
$3.51
48.80
$5.17
Appendix
Table 8: Majority voting compared with BoT-R (GPT-4o). Accuracy in percent, cost in USD over the full dataset. Majority-vote rows aggregate s=3 samples at temperature 0.7 ; all other rows use temperature 0 . BoT-R uses the batch size reported in Table 1 .
Question
Initial
After BoT-R
Who knew vaccines do not
Mary ✓
Mary ✓
cause autism?
Who believed vaccines do
Mary ×
Betty ✓
cause autism?
Appendix
Table 9: Case 1. Answered in isolation, the Actor assigns both opposing beliefs to the same character; joint evaluation surfaces the contradiction and corrects the second item.
Batch item
Reflector decision
Organic named-reaction
Accept
Genetic inheritance
Accept
Stem-cell culture
Accept
Diene reactivity
Re-evaluate
Appendix
Table 10: Case 2. Joint evaluation of a four-item batch flags only the answer that lacks mechanism-level support, leaving the other three untouched.
Batch
FraudDet
GPQA
Winogrande
MedQA
PubMedQA
SMS Spam
1 (Reflection)
0.693
0.459
0.879
0.901
0.667
0.854
4
0.740
0.488
0.888
0.895
0.683
0.881
8
0.732
0.471
0.890
0.904
0.698
0.887
Appendix
Table 11: Batch size influence on accuracy (GPT-4o) across the full benchmark suite. Batch size N=1 is functionally equivalent to per-instance Reflection.
Dataset
N=1
N=2
N=4
N=6
N=8
N=12
N=16
Winogrande
0.879
0.886
0.888
0.893
0.890
0.893
0.887
SMS Spam
0.854
0.887
0.881
0.909
0.887
0.912
0.921
GPQA
0.459
0.488
0.488
0.468
0.471
0.472
0.456
Appendix
Table 12: Extended batch size stress test on three representative datasets (GPT-4o). Accuracy is reported across a wider range of batch sizes to evaluate scaling behavior, stability, and context saturation boundaries.
Method
EF-ECE ↓
Brier ↓
NLL ↓
KS ↑
GPQA
ReAct
51.61%
0.5023
1.7006
0.181
Reflection
44.81%
0.4412
1.5211
0.265
BoT-R
40.66%
0.4015
1.4761
0.368
Winogrande
ReAct
6.58%
0.1107
0.3720
0.273
Appendix
Table 13: Bias-robust calibration metrics (GPT-4o). EF-ECE is equal-frequency ECE with 10 bins; Brier and binary NLL are strictly proper scoring rules; KS is reproduced from Table 3 . Best value per column and dataset in bold.
Dataset
Comparison
Exact p
GPQA
ReAct → Reflection
0.011
ReAct → BoT-R
0.008
Reflection → BoT-R
0.048
Winogrande
ReAct → Reflection
0.007
ReAct → BoT-R
0.001
Reflection → BoT-R
0.324
Appendix
Table 14: Exact McNemar tests on paired per-item outcomes from the deterministic (temperature 0 ) runs, GPT-4o.
Dataset
ReAct
Reflection
BoT-R
GPQA
42.53 ± 1.31
45.58 ± 0.44
47.44 ± 1.18
Winogrande
86.77 ± 0.12
88.23 ± 0.22
89.27 ± 0.15
Appendix
Table 15: Run-to-run variance at temperature 0.7 over three seeds (GPT-4o); accuracy in percent, mean ± SD. Reported separately from Table 14 , since stochastic runs cannot enter a paired test.
Subject
ReAct
Reflection
BoT-R
Biology
anatomy
0.907
0.918
0.910
clinical_knowledge
0.913
0.898
0.913
college_biology
0.941
0.931
0.965
college_medicine
0.852
0.855
0.866
high_school_biology
0.959
0.961
0.964
Appendix
Table 16: MMLU per-subject accuracy summary grouped by category (GPT-4o).
Recent work on test-time scaling for large language model (LLM) reasoning typically assumes that allocating more inference-time computation uniformly improves correctness. However, prior studies show that reasoning uncertainty is highly localized: a small subset of low-confidence tokens disproportionately contributes to reasoning errors and unnecessary output expansion. Motivated by this observation, we propose Thinking by Subtraction, a confidence-driven contrastive decoding approach that improves reasoning reliability through targeted token-level intervention. Our method, Confidence-Driven Contrastive Decoding, detects low-confidence tokens during decoding and intervenes selectively at these positions. It constructs a contrastive reference by replacing high-confidence tokens with minimal placeholders, and refines predictions by subtracting this reference distribution at low-confidence locations. Experiments show that CCD significantly improves accuracy across mathematical reasoning benchmarks while substantially reducing output length, with minimal KV-cache overhead. As a training-free method, CCD enhances reasoning reliability through targeted low-confidence intervention without computational redundancy. Our code will be made available at: https://github.com/bolo-web/CCD.
Lexiang Tang, Weihao Gao, Bingchen Zhao +4
Peking University, Beijing, China · University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit strong linguistic abilities while remaining unreliable on multi-step reasoning tasks, particularly when deployed without additional training or fine-tuning. In this work, we study inference-time techniques to improve the reasoning accuracy of LLMs. We systematically evaluate three classes of inference-time strategies: (i) self-consistency via stochastic decoding, where the model is sampled multiple times using controlled temperature and nucleus sampling and the most frequent final answer is selected; (ii) dual-model reasoning agreement, where outputs from two independent models are compared and only consistent reasoning traces are trusted; and (iii) self-reflection, where the model critiques and revises its own reasoning. Across all evaluated methods, we employ Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [1] prompting to elicit explicit intermediate reasoning steps before generating final answers. In this work, we provide a controlled comparative evaluation across three inference-time strategies under identical prompting and verification settings. Our experiments on LLM [2] show that self-consistency with nucleus sampling and controlled temperature value yields the substantial gains, achieving a 9% to 15% absolute improvement in accuracy over greedy single-pass decoding, well-suited for low-risk domains, offering meaningful gains with minimal overhead. The dual-model approach provides additional confirmation for model reasoning steps thus more appropriate for moderate-risk domains, where higher reliability justifies additional compute. Self-reflection offers only marginal improvements, suggesting limited effectiveness for smaller non-reasoning models at inference time.
Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail to utilize their latent reasoning capabilities due to a distributional mismatch between ambiguous human inquiries and the structured logic required for machine activation. Existing alignment methods either incur prohibitive O(N) costs by fine-tuning each model individually or rely on static prompts that fail to resolve query-level structural complexity. In this paper, we propose ReQueR (Reinforcement Query Refinement), a modular framework that treats reasoning elicitation as an inference-time alignment task. We train a specialized Refiner policy via Reinforcement Learning to rewrite raw queries into explicit logical decompositions, treating frozen LLMs as the environment. Rooted in the classical Zone of Proximal Development from educational psychology, we introduce the Adaptive Solver Hierarchy, a curriculum mechanism that stabilizes training by dynamically aligning environmental difficulty with the Refiner's evolving competence. ReQueR yields consistent absolute gains of 1.7%--7.2% across diverse architectures and benchmarks, outperforming strong baselines by 2.1% on average. Crucially, it provides a promising paradigm for one-to-many inference-time reasoning elicitation, enabling a single Refiner trained on a small set of models to effectively unlock reasoning in diverse unseen models. Code is available at https://github.com/newera-xiao/ReQueR.
Yixiao Zhou, Dongzhou Cheng, zhiliang wu +3
Zhejiang University · Shanghai Innovation Institute · 1Zhejiang University, 2Shanghai Innovation Institute +9