# Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15177 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15177/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 26 of its 63 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00752/) (2023)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07927/) (2024)
- [Jamba: A Hybrid Transformer-Mamba Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19887/) (2024)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19314/) (2024)
- [FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00840/) (2022)
- [LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13281/) (2023)
- [Arithmetic Without Algorithms: Language Models Solve Math With a Bag of Heuristics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21272/) (2024)
- [Cumulative Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04371/) (2023)
- [Functional Benchmarks for Robust Evaluation of Reasoning Performance, and the Reasoning Gap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19450/) (2024)
- [Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16579/) (2024)
- [Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02079/) (2024)
- [Provable Scaling Laws for the Test-Time Compute of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.19477/) (2024)
- [Can formal argumentative reasoning enhance LLMs performances?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13036/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Limited Reasoning Space: The cage of long-horizon reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.19281/) (2026)
- [CHAL: Council of Hierarchical Agentic Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12718/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Studies have underscored how, regardless of the recent breakthrough and swift advances in AI research, even state-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. The results seem to suggest that LLMs still work as (highly advanced) data pattern identifiers, scoring poorly when attempting to generalise and solve reasoning problems the models have never previously seen or that are not close to samples presented in their training data. To address this compelling concern, this paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By probing the rationale behind the models' reasoning process, the LLM can assess whether some logical mistake is occurring and correct it before providing the final reply to the user prompt. The underlying idea is drawn from the gold standard of any valid argumentative procedure: the conclusion is valid if it is entailed by accepted premises. Or, to paraphrase such Aristotelian principle in a real-world approximation, characterised by incomplete information and presumptive logic, the conclusion is valid if not proved otherwise. This approach successfully steers the models' output through a reasoning pipeline, resulting in better performance against the baseline and its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation. To this end, an extensive evaluation of the proposed approach on the MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks across a range of LLMs is provided.