Papers › DCR: Divide-and-Conquer Reasoning for Multi-choice Question Answering with LLMs

DCR: Divide-and-Conquer Reasoning for Multi-choice Question Answering with LLMs

10 Jan 2024arXiv:2401.05190archive 2025-07-28

Zijie Meng, Yan Zhang, Zhaopeng Feng, Zuozhu Liu

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in reasoning benchmarks with the emergence of Chain-of-Thought (CoT), particularly in multi-choice question (MCQ). However, current works equally resolve questions regardless of the problem-solving difficulty, leading to an excessive focus on simple items while insufficient attention on intricate ones. To address this challenge, we propose a simple yet effective strategy, Divide and Conquer Reasoning (DCR), to enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs for MCQs, as inspired by human beings using heuristics to first categorize tasks and then handle them separately. In particular, we first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score (𝒞𝒮), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers. Subsequently, we propose Filter Choices based Reasoning (FCR) to improve model performance on MCQs with low (𝒞𝒮). Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed strategy only costs 85% of SOTA, while still achieves average accuracy improvement of 1.56% across nine datasets including arithmetic, commonsense, and logic reasoning tasks. The code is at \url{https://github.com/AiMijie/Divide-and-Conquer}

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2401.05190")

Code

Syntology Ran 8 of 8 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 6 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 8 samples from 2 repositories, 8 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

aimijie/dcr officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report
aimijie/divide-and-conquer officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubMIT report

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

8 samples harvested; 8 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

2ran · our draft was wrong
6ran

Licence: 0 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

createInput aimijie/divide-and-conquer/utils.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · 372e469b050ee739 · report
getPath aimijie/divide-and-conquer/utils.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · 8f022f97a0945aeb · report
get_ans_sc aimijie/divide-and-conquer/compute_all_acc.py official repository ran fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · ed2a1cf1e9a15cb6 · report
get_len_and_acc_conquered aimijie/divide-and-conquer/compute_all_acc.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · abdc8ec1bd2a34c1 · report
get_len_and_acc_fixed aimijie/divide-and-conquer/compute_all_acc.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · ee7b33e026bff293 · report
get_sim_an aimijie/dcr/split_data.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · 89312e410ccb2f33 · report
judge_confidence aimijie/dcr/split_data.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong MIT (permissive) · 2b3be75199e4658e · report
setPrompt aimijie/divide-and-conquer/utils.py official repository ran MIT (permissive) · 42008063fbb6e058 · report

Tasks

Question Answering

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Focus

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