# Rationale-Aware Answer Verification by Pairwise Self-Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04838 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04838/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 43 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 43)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02311/) (2022)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03350/) (2022)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.00161/) (2019)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02235/) (2021)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08998/) (2023)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09561/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.17563/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08582/) (2023)
- [LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08468/) (2023)
- [Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.02336/) (2022)
- [V-STaR: Training Verifiers for Self-Taught Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06457/) (2024)
- [REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.01904/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03686/) (2025)
- [Provable Scaling Laws for the Test-Time Compute of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.19477/) (2024)
- [AdaSTaR: Adaptive Data Sampling for Training Self-Taught Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16322/) (2025)
- [C2: Scalable Rubric-Augmented Reward Modeling from Binary Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13618/) (2026)
- [SkillVerse : Assessing and Enhancing LLMs with Tree Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00319/) (2025)
- [Decision Shifts, Lost Label Functionality, and an Inconclusive Grounding Audit in Correctness-Gated Multi-Teacher Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09702/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Answer verification identifies correct solutions among candidates generated by large language models (LLMs). Current approaches typically train verifier models by labeling solutions as correct or incorrect based solely on whether the final answer matches the gold answer. However, this approach neglects any flawed rationale in the solution yielding the correct answer, undermining the verifier's ability to distinguish between sound and flawed rationales. We empirically show that in StrategyQA, only 19% of LLM-generated solutions with correct answers have valid rationales, thus leading to an unreliable verifier. Furthermore, we demonstrate that training a verifier on valid rationales significantly improves its ability to distinguish valid and flawed rationale. To make a better verifier without extra human supervision, we introduce REPS (Rationale Enhancement through Pairwise Selection), a method for selecting valid rationales from candidates by iteratively applying pairwise self-evaluation using the same LLM that generates the solutions. Verifiers trained on solutions selected by REPS outperform those trained using conventional training methods on three reasoning benchmarks (ARC-Challenge, DROP, and StrategyQA). Our results suggest that training reliable verifiers requires ensuring the validity of rationales in addition to the correctness of the final answers, which would be critical for models assisting humans in solving complex reasoning tasks.