Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models

Large Language Models often improve accuracy on reasoning tasks by sampling multiple Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces and aggregating them with majority voting (MV), a test-time technique called self-consistency. When we truncate a CoT partway through and regenerate the remainder, we observe that traces with correct answers reproduce their original answer more often than traces with wrong answers. We use this difference as a reliability signal, prefix consistency, that weights each candidate answer by how often it reappears under regeneration. It requires no access to token log-probabilities or self-rating prompts. Across five reasoning models and four math and science benchmarks, prefix consistency is the best correctness predictor in most settings, and reweighting votes by it reaches Standard MV plateau accuracy at up to 21x fewer tokens (median 4.6x). Our code is available at https://github.com/naoto-iwase/prefix-consistency.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remain prone to hallucinations, producing fluent but visually unfaithful outputs. Existing chain-of-thought and retrieval-augmented methods only partially address this, as they neither enforce step-level citation grounding nor route verification failures back to retrieval for correction. We present CaVe-VLM-CoT, a modular reflection-based agentic-RAG framework that enforces evidence-grounded reasoning through a five-stage closed-loop pipeline: Extractor, Retriever, Solver, Citation Injector, and Verifier, in which detected ungrounded claims trigger structured feedback to the Extractor for targeted re-retrieval. Since no existing framework jointly measures retrieval quality, step-wise citation faithfulness, and cross-modal grounding, we propose a suite of 23 component-wise metrics across all stages, anchored by CaVeScore, a composite metric weighting accuracy, citation precision and recall, attribution, and evidence grounding. Without any architectural or prompt modifications, CaVe-VLM-CoT achieves 87.1% accuracy and 56.6% CaVeScore on ScienceQA , and 55.2% accuracy and 35.7% CaVeScore on MMMU (30 subjects).

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.