Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

RCOT: Detecting and Rectifying Factual Inconsistency in Reasoning by Reversing Chain-of-Thought

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.11499 v2 pith:SS4XJWC5 submitted 2023-05-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords factualllmsinconsistencyrcotreasoningfeedbackfine-grainedsolutions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language Models (LLMs) have achieved promising performance on arithmetic reasoning tasks by incorporating step-by-step chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. However, LLMs face challenges in maintaining factual consistency during reasoning, exhibiting tendencies to condition overlooking, question misinterpretation, and condition hallucination over given problems. Existing methods use coarse-grained feedback (e.g., whether the answer is correct) to improve factual consistency. In this work, we propose RCoT (Reversing Chain-of-Thought), a novel method to improve LLMs' reasoning abilities by automatically detecting and rectifying factual inconsistency in LLMs, generated solutions. To detect factual inconsistency, RCoT first asks LLMs to reconstruct the problem based on generated solutions. Then fine-grained comparisons between the original problem and the reconstructed problem expose the factual inconsistency in the original solutions. To rectify the solution, RCoT formulates detected factual inconsistency into fine-grained feedback to guide LLMs in revising solutions. Experimental results demonstrate improvements of RCoT over standard CoT, Self-Consistency and Self-Refine across seven arithmetic datasets. Moreover, we find that manually written fine-grained feedback can dramatically improve LLMs' reasoning abilities (e.g., ChatGPT reaches 94.6% accuracy on GSM8K), encouraging the community to further explore the fine-grained feedback generation methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 5 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Knowledge or Reasoning? A Close Look at How LLMs Think Across Domains

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM reasoning can be scored separately for knowledge and step-by-step information gain, and doing so shows SFT and RL affect these two capacities differently across medicine and math.

  2. Loki's Dance of Illusions: A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey of LLM hallucination research that formalizes hallucination types and argues, via incompleteness and undecidability arguments, that hallucinations cannot be fully eliminated.

Pith tools