Direct-Inverse Prompting: Analyzing LLMs’ Discriminative Capacity
in Self-Improving Generation

Various methods are being devised to increase the certainty of LLM-generated answers. Chain-of-Thought Wei et al. (2023) tries to add a detailed reasoning path from the input to the output answer so that the answer is more explainable and certain. Self-Consistency Wang et al. (2023b) has the LLM solve the same problem multiple times to obtain several results. A majority vote is then conducted to choose the most consistent result as the final answer. This approach guarantees a higher success rate than Chain-of-Thought. Based on this, diverse variants of Self-Consistency exist; for example, Universal Self-Consistency Chen et al. (2023a), which includes reasoning to select the most consistent value as the final answer, or Early Stop Self-Consistency Li et al. (2024), which reduces the number of answer sets used in the majority vote to save cost and time. It is worth mentioning that the above approaches are fully unsupervised, namely no human or external signals are needed.

To assess the generative and discriminative capabilities of LLMs, Liu et al. (2023) and Arora and Kambhampati (2023) carried out experiments on summarization and planning problem, respectively. The most related work, Jiang et al. (2024), concluded that LLMs struggle to enhance their generation performance through discriminative capability because their discriminative capability is not stronger than their generative capability. Our work differs from this study in two key ways: i) Jiang et al. (2024) only considered a simplified discriminative prompt similar to our Direct Prompt. They provided the discriminative prompt with all the generated final answers without the reasoning paths. In contrast, our Direct Prompt includes reasoning-path equipped answers, which we believe can help LLMs better determine the correct answer. ii) We further analyze another complementary discriminative capability expressed by Inverse Prompt. While Inverse Prompt should theoretically yield the same conclusions if applied to humans, the inconsistency between Direct Prompt and Inverse Prompt in LLMs allows us to better understand their discriminative potential in reducing generative uncertainty. iii) Our findings suggest a different conclusion: LLMs’ discriminative capabilities can indeed enhance their generation if used skillfully.

Here, we directly ask LLMs which options are correct with the following prompt:

This problem [problem description] has the following reasoning paths you generated: “ A: [$path_{1}$]”, “B: [$path_{2}$]”, “C: [$path_{3}$]”, “D: [$path_{4}$]”, “E: [$path_{5}$]”. Please output the correct ones.

Here, we ask LLMs which options are incorrect with the following prompt:

This problem [problem description] has the following reasoning paths you generated: “ A: [$path_{1}$]”, “B: [$path_{2}$]”, “C: [$path_{3}$]”, “D: [$path_{4}$]”, “E: [$path_{5}$]”. Please output the incorrect ones.

As humans, when asked using both Direct Prompt and Inverse Prompt prompts, their answers should be consistent. However, this is not the case with LLMs, as our analysis in Section 5.2 shows. For instance, using Direct Prompt, an LLM may believe “A and B” are correct, but when asked using Inverse Prompt, it might believe “B and C” are incorrect, implying that “A, D, and E” are correct. Direct Prompt and Inverse Prompt reflect LLMs’ discriminative analysis of the problem from different perspectives, and we combine their results to improve accuracy. Specifically, we run Direct Prompt and Inverse Prompt separately multiple times and select the final answer by identifying the most consensus among the responses.

Two datasets. An example of each dataset is given in appendix A.

• MATH Hendrycks et al. (2021): This dataset contains 7 types of open-ended math problems, including algebra and geometry, with average high school difficulty. For this project, we selected the entire test dataset of 5,000 problems. Each problem includes a “problem” label, representing the math word problem, and a “solution” label, which provides the explanation of how to solve the problem, including an answer formatted as $\boxed{$A$}$, where $A$ is the answer. To maintain consistency, all models were instructed to return the final answer in the same format as the dataset.

• MathQA Amini et al. (2019): This dataset includes 6 types of math problems, with college-level difficulty. We selected all 2,985 problems from the test dataset. Each entry in MathQA contains a “problem,” a “rationale” explaining how to solve it, “options” that list possible answers, and “correct,” indicating the correct answer from the options. LLMs were instructed to return the correct option’s alphabet from the given choices.

i) Two closed-source LLMs: GPT-4 OpenAI (2023) and GPT-4o OpenAI (2024). Both by OpenAI APIs. We do not consider more closed-source LLMs due to budget limits, and GPT-4 and GPT-4o are already widely recognized as the strongest LLMs. ii) Open-source LLMs: Llama-3 Meta (2024) and MetaMath Yu et al. (2023)–a LLM specifically optimized for math problem solving. In our experiments, five A100 GPUs were used for running Llama-3 and MetaMath inference.

i) Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Wei et al. (2022). We run it three times and report the average performance. ii) Universal Self-Consistency Chen et al. (2023a), the state-of-the-art approach CoT reasoning process five times, and finally choosing the answer with majority voting.

To prevent the LLMs’ responses to options like “A, B, C, etc.” from being biased due to their pretraining, we will shuffle these options and re-index them for each run. The final performance will be the average of three runs.