Skip to content
← Back to explorer

enhancing reasoning accuracy in large language models during inference time

Vinay Sharma, Manish Jain · Mar 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

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.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

Automatic metrics, Long Horizon tasks

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Accuracy, Agreement / Kappa

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: In this work, we study inference-time techniques to improve the reasoning accuracy of LLMs.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Human Data Lens

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy, Agreement / Kappa
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.