arxiv-2510-02816 SRC-0324 · paper

NCV: A Node-Wise Consistency Verification Approach for Low-Cost Structured Error Localization in LLM Reasoning

Created: 2025-10-03 · Ingested: 2026-09-19

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02816(opens in a new tab)

Verifying multi-step reasoning in large language models is difficult due to imprecise error localization and high token costs. Existing methods either assess entire reasoning chains, suffering attention dilution, or rely on expensive multi-sampling. We introduce Node-wise Consistency Verification (NCV), a training-free framework that recasts verification as lightweight binary consistency checks at the node level. By decomposing the chain of thought into interconnected verification nodes, NCV precisely localizes errors and avoids unnecessary long-form generation. Experiments demonstrate that ou

In brief

Asking a model a long string of 4-token yes/no questions about individual reasoning claims localizes errors better than asking it to verify the whole chain with Chain-of-Thought, and costs far less. Node-wise Consistency Verification (NCV) decomposes a solution into atomic assertions, verifies each conditioned on previously accepted nodes, and aggregates 3 binary samples per node.

Evaluation is on all 4 ProcessBench subsets (3,400 cases: GSM8K 400, MATH 1,000, OlympiadBench 1,000, Omni-MATH 1,000), with Qwen2.5-7B/32B/72B and Llama-3.3-70B, against end-to-end CoT verification with greedy decoding and 8-sample majority voting.

For Qwen2.5-32B, average F1 rises from 45.2 (greedy) and 49.3 (8-vote) to 61.4, with gains growing by difficulty: 13.3 points on GSM8K, 20.9 on MATH, 21.9 on OlympiadBench, 23.8 on Omni-MATH. Error localization accuracy on OlympiadBench is 55.8% vs 25.3%. Token use is 28.1 per sample vs 177.4 and 1619.2, a 6.3x and 57.6x reduction. Per-node CoT (NCV@3-cot) reaches 69.0 F1.

The ablation separates structure from consistency (48.3 for 3-vote without structure, 54.9 for structure without consistency) on 1 model, and token costs are reported at matched comparisons. Gains are uneven across models: on Llama-3.3-70B average F1 is 58.0, tied with the 8-vote baseline and worse on GSM8K, and Qwen2.5-72B gains only 63.3 vs 61.2.

If you verify math reasoning, constrained binary node checks are a cheaper default than chain-level CoT, but confirm the gain holds for your model family.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-17, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.