To Reason or Not to: Selective Chain-of-Thought in Medical Question Answering
Authors: Zaifu Zhan, Min Zeng, Shuang Zhou, Yiran Song, Xiaoyi Chen, Yu Hou, Yifan Wu, Yang Ruan, Rui Zhang
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, 200 Union St SE, 55455, Minneapolis, MN, United States · Division of Computational Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, 55455, Minneapolis, MN, United States · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, 200 Union St SE, 55455, Minneapolis, MN, United States · Division of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 2221 University Ave SE, 55414, Minneapolis, MN, United States
Objective: To improve the efficiency of medical question answering (MedQA) with large language models (LLMs) by avoiding unnecessary reasoning while maintaining accuracy. Methods: We propose Selective Chain-of-Thought (Selective CoT), an inference-time strategy that first predicts whether a question requires reasoning and generates a rationale only when needed. Two open-source LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-2.5-7B) were evaluated on four biomedical QA benchmarks-HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA. Metrics included accuracy, total generated tokens, and inference time. Results: Selective CoT reduced inference time by 13-45% and token usage by 8-47% with minimal accuracy loss (≤4%). In some model-task pairs, it achieved both higher accuracy and greater efficiency than standard CoT. Compared with fixed-length CoT, Selective CoT reached similar or superior accuracy at substantially lower computational cost. Discussion: Selective CoT dynamically balances reasoning depth and efficiency by invoking explicit reasoning only when beneficial, reducing redundancy on recall-type questions while preserving interpretability. Conclusion: Selective CoT provides a simple, model-agnostic, and cost-effective approach for medical QA, aligning reasoning effort with question complexity to enhance real-world deployability of LLM-based clinical systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Standard Prompt, Chain-of-thought, and Selective CoT prompting (ours) on a representative MedQA case. Left: an example clinical vignette (multiple-choice from MedQA-USMLE dataset). Middle: three inference paradigms—Standard Prompt (answer directly), CoT Prompt (produce step-by-step reasoning before the answer), and Selective CoT Prompt (first decide whether reasoning is necessary; if yes, generate CoT, otherwise answer directly). Right: a comparison illustrating that full CoT improves logicality and interpretability when reasoning is required, but wastes compute on recall-type questions; Selective CoT preserves accuracy while improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness by invoking reasoning only when needed.
Dataset
Testset
Source
HeadQA
244
Spanish medical exams
MedQA-USMLE
1,273
US Medical exam
MedMCQA
4,183
Indian Medical exam
PubMedQA
500
Biomedical literature
Table 1: Datasets and their source. We report only test sets, as no training or fine-tuning was performed.
Acc
# Tokens
Time (s)
Dataset
Model
Method
Score
Drop (%)
Value
Drop (%)
Value
Drop (%)
\multirow 4*HeadQA
\multirow 2*Llama-3.1-8B
CoT
0.7090
135504
2695.1428
Selective CoT
0.6803
4.0462
136880
-1.0155
2178.3438
19.1752
\multirow 2*Qwen2.5-7B
CoT
0.6598
93352
2574.1979
Selective CoT
0.7172
-8.6957
75600
19.0162
2120.5520
17.6228
\multirow 4*MedMCQA
\multirow 2*Llama-3.1-8B
CoT
0.5826
2184424
45140.2206
Table 2: Selective CoT vs. full CoT: accuracy–efficiency trade-offs. Accuracy, total generated tokens, and end-to-end inference time across datasets and models; “Drop(%)” denotes relative change vs. full CoT (positive means reduction).
Figure 2: Performance and efficiency comparison of Selective CoT versus fixed-length CoT across four biomedical QA datasets (HeadQA, MedMCQA, MedQA-USMLE, PubMedQA) and two open-source LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B). The three rows report, respectively, Accuracy , #Tokens , and Inference Time . Selective CoT matches or slightly outperforms strong fixed-length CoT baselines while substantially reducing token usage and latency, yielding a superior compute–performance trade-off.
Figure 3: Ablation on reasoning length versus Selective CoT. For fixed-length CoT, we sweep reasoning lengths (e.g., 100–600 words) and fit a dashed quadratic curve to the length–accuracy relationship; Selective CoT is marked as a red point for reference. Accuracy under Selective CoT typically lies near the empirical optimum and often on or above the fitted curve for several datasets, achieving comparable or higher accuracy with fewer tokens and shorter time than long, uniform CoT.
Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA). Method: We designed a multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method in which multiple LLM agents independently generate chain-of-thought reasoning with candidate answers, then act as peer reviewers to evaluate each other's reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest-rated reasoning chain is selected to produce the final answer. Experiments were conducted with five state-of-the-art LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4, DeepSeek-LLM-7B, GPT-oss-20B) on three benchmark datasets: HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, and PubMedQA. Performance was compared against single-model chain-of-thought reasoning and chain-of-thought-based majority voting. Results: Peer-reviewed reasoning consistently outperformed both baselines. The best model combination achieved an average accuracy of 0.820 across datasets, exceeding the strongest single model (0.777) and majority voting ensembles (up to 0.789). The method also scaled effectively with more participating models, while peer assessments reliably distinguished high- from low-quality reasoning chains. Conclusion: The proposed multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method enables LLMs to act as both solvers and evaluators, yielding superior performance in MedQA. By emphasizing reasoning quality rather than answer agreement alone, this approach improves accuracy, interpretability, and robustness, offering a promising direction for trustworthy biomedical AI systems.
Zaifu Zhan, Shuang Zhou, Rui Zhang
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, 200 Union St SE, 55455, Minneapolis, MN, United States · Division of Computational Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, 55455, Minneapolis, MN, United States
Medical question answering requires advanced reasoning that integrates domain knowledge with logical inference. However, existing large language models (LLMs) often generate reasoning chains that lack factual accuracy and clinical reliability. We propose Ranked Preference Reinforcement Optimization (RPRO), a novel framework that combines reinforcement learning with preference-driven reasoning refinement to enhance clinical chain-of-thought (CoT) performance. RPRO distinguishes itself from prior approaches by employing task-adaptive reasoning templates and a probabilistic evaluation mechanism that aligns model outputs with established clinical workflows, while automatically identifying and correcting low-quality reasoning chains. Unlike traditional pairwise preference methods, RPRO introduces a groupwise ranking optimization based on the Bradley--Terry model and incorporates KL-divergence regularization for stable training. Experiments on PubMedQA, MedQA-USMLE, and a real-world clinical dataset from Far Eastern Memorial Hospital (FEMH) demonstrate consistent improvements over strong baselines. Remarkably, our 2B-parameter model outperforms much larger 7B--20B models, including medical-specialized variants. These findings demonstrate that combining preference optimization with quality-driven refinement provides a scalable and clinically grounded approach to building more reliable medical LLMs.
Chia-Hsuan Hsu, Jun-En Ding, Hsin-Ling Hsu +5
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan · Department of Systems Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA · Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan +4
In medical multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) can supplement the domain knowledge of language models (LMs). However, since vanilla RAG indiscriminately utilizes retrieved documents, it can degrade LM performance. To address this, we propose MedJudgeRAG. Our framework represents retrieved documents as a dynamic knowledge graph (KG) composed of entities and relations. For each option, the model judges an evidence verdict from the retrieved documents and the KG. Based on the verdict combination, the model determines a knowledge utilization strategy to reason toward the final answer. These capabilities are trained via supervised fine-tuning using structured reasoning traces generated by a teacher LM. The training employs a weighted cross-entropy loss that differentially weights the KG and reasoning segments. Experiments on two medical MCQA benchmarks demonstrate that MedJudgeRAG consistently outperforms both vanilla RAG and parametric baselines. Furthermore, ablation analysis reveals that the dynamic KG is more effective as graph-conditioned supervision at training time than as an explicit output at inference time. Our code is available at https://github.com/hyu-amllab/medjudgerag, and the generated reasoning traces are released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/youarethewon/medjudgerag.
Seongwon Seo, Seung Hwan Cho, Young-Min Kim
Department of Industrial Data Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea · School of Interdisciplinary Industrial Studies, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea