Large language models increasingly tackle tasks that require multi-step reasoning, where errors in intermediate claims can affect the final answer. Self-consistency (SC) improves reasoning by voting over sampled final answers, but its vote leaves intermediate disagreements unresolved. To address this problem, we introduce DDRG (Disagreement-Driven Verification Guided by Reasoning Graphs), a framework for selective correction from a frozen bank of reasoning traces. Our insight is that graph alignment can expose claim-level disagreements and provide correction evidence without expanding the sampled trace bank. DDRG builds source-grounded claim graphs and sends localized conflicts to an answer-blind verifier. A verifier-supported refutation that reaches the majority answer's supporting path triggers one focused repair; otherwise, DDRG returns the exact SC vote. Experimental results across five benchmarks show that native zero-shot DDRG improves macro-average accuracy over direct answering by 8.65 and 15.83 percentage points for Qwen2.5-7B and Llama3.1-8B. It also exceeds CoT, the evaluated GoT and GoV question-answering adaptations, and SC on this macro metric. DDRG links local verification to selective correction without enlarging the initial candidate bank.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of CoT, self-consistency (SC), and DDRG. CoT uses one trace; SC votes over final answers. DDRG verifies aligned local disagreements and uses answer-relevant evidence for one regeneration, retaining SC when correction is unwarranted.
Figure 2: DDRG overview. SC and DDRG share a frozen bank. The verifier assesses local claims; the controller tests answer-path relevance and permits one regeneration. Ineligible evidence or an unparseable response returns SC.
Method
MedQA
GSM8K
ReClor
LogiQA2
FOLIO
Macro Avg.
Qwen2.5-7B
Direct
60.88
70.36
70.00
63.80
55.39
64.09
CoT ( Wei et al., 2022 )
62.77
89.01
72.00
65.39
68.63
71.56
GoT (QA) ( Besta et al., 2024 )
63.16
90.90
70.40
64.89
59.31
69.73
GoV (QA) ( Fang et al., 2026 )
60.64
90.22
73.40
63.42
58.33
69.20
DDRG
64.02
92.27
74.40
67.30
65.69
72.74
Table 1: Full-cohort accuracy (%). Macro averages equally weight the five benchmarks. Bold marks the best result among the five displayed methods within each solver. GoT and GoV are QA adaptations (Section 4.1 ); SC and same-bank gains are reported separately in Appendix A.1 .
Figure 3: Net corrections over same-bank SC. In each pair, the upper bar is Qwen and the lower bar is Llama. Net counts subtract harmful from beneficial changes; totals are +34 and +31 . Dataset sizes differ.
Figure 4: DDRG corrects GSM8K test:147 from SC’s 90 to 75. Aligned claim fragments expose the omitted earlier returns; independent verification and answer-path evidence trigger one regeneration. The illustrated local dependencies are condensed (Appendix E ).
Figure 5: Saved harmful correction on FOLIO validation 79. The abbreviated logical chain explains why B is correct; the verifier misses the contradiction and DDRG changes B to C.
Solver
Pattern
ND
SC
DDRG
Δ pp
Qwen
2:1
1258
51.27
53.10
+1.83
1:1:1
190
30.53
36.32
+5.79
Llama
2:1
1787
54.34
55.18
+0.84
1:1:1
404
28.71
32.67
+3.96
Table 2: Post-hoc pooled accuracy by stored-answer pattern. ND includes every question in the group, including failed and retained outputs. Gains are not full-cohort macro gains.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
MedQA
GSM8K
ReClor
LogiQA2
FOLIO
Overall
Qwen2.5-7B
SC@3 accuracy (%)
62.37
91.89
74.00
66.98
65.20
72.09
DDRG − SC (pp)
+1.65
+0.38
+0.40
+0.32
+0.49
+0.65
Llama3.1-8B
SC@3 accuracy (%)
69.52
87.64
63.60
54.71
55.39
66.17
DDRG − SC (pp)
+0.55
+0.83
+0.40
+0.76
−0.49
+0.41
Appendix
Table 3: Same-bank SC baseline and DDRG gains. Overall is the equal-benchmark macro average for the accuracy and gain rows. Gains use exact correct/ N ; rounding may cause a 0.01-point difference from displayed accuracies in Table 1 .
Method
GSM8K 147
FOLIO 79
Direct
90
A
CoT
90
B
SC@3
90
B
GoT (QA)
45
B
GoV (QA)
90
B
DDRG
75
C
Appendix
Table 4: Recorded final answers for the successful and harmful cases. The table shows endpoint comparisons, not full intermediate traces for every baseline.
Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers. We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted. Using these signals, DISC progressively reduces errors across multiple verify-judge-correct passes, analogous to traditional iterative denoising. A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors. We evaluate this trade-off using two paired diagnostics: an improvement-to-degradation ratio (precision) and a repair rate (recall). Across three benchmarks (BIG-Bench Mistake, HotpotQA, GPQA Diamond) and four models, DISC dominates Chain-of-Verification and Self-Refine on the precision-recall trade-off, reaching 81.6% accuracy with 13x more improvements per degradation than Chain-of-Verification and 5x more than Self-Refine on BIG-Bench Mistake (Sonnet~4.5). On GPQA Diamond, we identify a capability floor below which judges acknowledge contradictions in evidence but cannot translate that recognition into a correction. We further show that cross-model role allocation -- assigning verification and judgment to a model different from the generator -- mitigates self-confirmation bias.
Large Reasoning Models produce Long Chains-of-Thought (LCoTs) which involve breaking down the problem into smaller reasoning steps before reaching the conclusion. However, these steps often contain contradictions, unsupported inferences, or irrelevant steps, even when the final answer is correct. We propose Long Chain-of-Thought Graph Verifier (LCoT-GV), a graph-based framework that represents LCoTs as reasoning graphs. Each node in the graph represents a reasoning step and the edges encode semantic and logical relations. A Graph Attention Network is then trained to predict chain-of-thought correctness from the reasoning graph. We construct a new graph-oriented verification dataset from multiple reasoning benchmarks for question answering in various domains. The results show that our method is competitive with the most similar approaches.
Bérénice Jaulmes, Mehwish Alam
1T´el´ecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France · 2BNP Paribas, IT Group, France
Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly used for various tasks, often coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to boost accuracy. Recent work has shown that high label-prediction accuracy does not guarantee correct intermediate reasoning, and the causes of reasoning flaws vary from sample to sample, yet existing remedies either focus on a single domain or assume that one flaw type applies uniformly across samples. A simple mitigation method is to provide the model with the correct answer, but we show that this yields no consistent improvement in reasoning quality. This indicates that the problem cannot be fixed by LLMs' awareness of answers, and must instead be addressed through the structure of reasoning. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT (Consensus Reasoning knowledge graph Aggregation for Flaw-aware Trace synthesis), which aggregates the consensus components shared across multiple candidate reasoning traces to synthesize improved ones. CRAFT consistently improves label-prediction accuracy on both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming most baselines, while its post-processed traces achieve higher quality under fine-grained benchmark evaluation.
Zipeng Ling, Shuliang Liu, Seonil Son +4
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University of Alberta · Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute +3