Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Large language models can solve many multi-step reasoning problems, but their reasoning remains brittle: plausible intermediate steps often lead to incorrect answers. Improving reasoning at test time requires balancing two imperfect signals: the generator, which provides diversity, and the verifier, which guides correctness. Existing approaches largely favor one side of this tradeoff. Verifier-weighted voting relies on trajectories sampled from the generator and cannot steer generation toward correct ones. By contrast, beam-style verifier-guided search can steer generation, but may over-concentrate on narrow trajectory sets and amplify verifier errors. We propose Verifier-Guided Self-Consistency (VGSC), a stochastic decoding framework that combines step-level correctness and future-outcome estimates to guide reasoning during generation. VGSC repeatedly proposes candidate next steps from the base language model and uses both signals in an acceptance/resampling procedure, while maintaining multiple trajectories for final answer-level self-consistency. We provide a probabilistic interpretation of VGSC as approximate sampling from a verifier-tilted trajectory distribution. Across multiple reasoning benchmarks, generator models, and verifier families, VGSC achieves higher average accuracy than representative baselines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fadeeva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: