Papers › Ranked Voting based Self-Consistency of Large Language Models
Ranked Voting based Self-Consistency of Large Language Models
Weiqin Wang, Yile Wang, Hui Huang
Majority voting is considered an effective method to enhance chain-of-thought reasoning, as it selects the answer with the highest "self-consistency" among different reasoning paths (Wang et al., 2023). However, previous chain-of-thought reasoning methods typically generate only a single answer in each trial, thereby ignoring the possibility of other potential answers. As a result, these alternative answers are often overlooked in subsequent voting processes. In this work, we propose to generate ranked answers in each reasoning process and conduct ranked voting among multiple ranked answers from different responses, thereby making the overall self-consistency more reliable. Specifically, we use three ranked voting methods: Instant-runoff voting, Borda count voting, and mean reciprocal rank voting. We validate our methods on six datasets, including three multiple-choice and three open-ended question-answering tasks, using both advanced open-source and closed-source large language models. Extensive experimental results indicate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, showcasing the potential of leveraging the information of ranked answers and using ranked voting to improve reasoning performance. The code is available at https://github.com/szu-tera/RankedVotingSC.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections