179 questions
No questions match those filters.
What is self-consistency prompting, and why does sampling multiple reasoning paths actually improve accuracy?
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansSelf-consistency is a decode-time technique layered on top of chain-of-thought prompting: instead of generating one reasoning chain greedily, you sample several reasoning chains for the same prompt with non-zero temperature, extract the final answer from each, and return whichever answer appears most often across the samples.
The reason this beats single-shot CoT comes down to how reasoning errors are distributed. A single greedy or sampled chain can go wrong at any intermediate step, and that error then propagates deterministically to a wrong final answer. But different sampled chains tend to make different mistakes, or take genuinely different valid routes to the same correct answer — correctness is more “attractor-like” than error is, because there are usually several logically sound ways to reach the right answer but many idiosyncratic ways to go wrong. Majority voting exploits that asymmetry: it doesn’t require any single path to be correct, only that correct paths cluster on the same answer more often than incorrect ones do.
The cost is straightforward — accuracy gains scale with the number of samples, but so does inference cost and latency, since you’re paying for N full generations instead of one. It’s best reserved for reasoning- heavy tasks (math, multi-step logic) where the accuracy lift justifies paying for redundant generations, not for routine low-stakes queries.