Self-consistency prompting involves asking the AI the same question multiple times. This approach encourages the AI to think through the answer in different ways each time. Then, we look at all the answers it generated and pick the one that appears most often. It’s a bit like getting a second, third, and fourth opinion to feel more confident in the final conclusion.
Why would you make AI go through the torture of answering the same question again and again? What’s the primary goal of self-consistency in prompt engineering?
Self-consistency prompting helps improve the accuracy and trustworthiness of the answers we get from LLMs. We make AI model double check itself via multiple reasoning paths. Then, we choose the most consistent or desired outcome generated. With this, you train the AI to generates responses that are more relevant for you.
Key takeaways from this guide:
- Learn what is self-consistency prompting
- Examples of self-consistency prompting
- FAQs solved on self-consistency prompting technique
What is prompt engineering? – a quick recap for newbies
Imagine asking a super-smart assistant a question. Sometimes, you get a perfect answer. Other times, the answer might be slightly different, or maybe even a little off. We face a similar situation when working with today’s powerful artificial intelligence (AI). Getting consistently dependable answers from AI can sometimes feel like a puzzle.
At the heart of many AI tools we use, like chatbots or writing assistants, are Large Language Models (LLMs). Think of LLMs as incredibly complex computer programs trained on vast amounts of text and data. They learn patterns in language, allowing them to understand what you ask and generate remarkably human-like text in response. They can write stories, answer questions, translate languages, and much more.
LLMs learn from such diverse information and have complex internal workings. They don’t always arrive at the same answer. This can happen even when asked the same question multiple times. They might follow slightly different ‘thought processes’ each time. This is where prompt engineering comes in.
Prompt engineering is simply the skill of carefully crafting the questions or instructions (the ‘prompts’) we give to LLMs. Good prompt engineering helps guide the AI to give us the specific kind of answer we’re looking for.
Still, even with careful prompting, ensuring accuracy, especially for tricky questions involving reasoning or calculation, remains a challenge.
That brings us to a clever technique called Self-Consistency Prompting. It’s an advanced strategy within prompt engineering designed specifically to boost the reliability of LLM answers.
How does self-consistency prompt engineering work?
So, how does this clever technique actually work? How does Self-Consistency Prompting help us get more trustworthy answers from AI?
The core idea is surprisingly simple: make use of variety and consensus.
Instead of relying on just one try, we ask the AI to try solving the problem multiple times. It approaches the problem in different ways. Then, we see which answer comes up most often.
The self-consistency approach to prompting involves a few key steps:
Generate multiple paths
First, we prompt the Large Language Model (LLM) not just once, but several times with the same question.
We often encourage it to think step-by-step.
This way, the AI can explore slightly different ways or ‘reasoning paths.’ It allows reaching an answer each time. Think of it as brainstorming different routes to the same destination.
Gather the answers
Next, we collect all the final answers that the LLM produced from these different reasoning paths. This step is sometimes called ‘aggregation’ – just a term for bringing everything together.
Find the most common answer
Finally, we look at the collection of answers. The answer that appears most often among all the different attempts is chosen as the final, most reliable output. This is like taking a ‘majority vote’.
If the AI came up with answer ‘A’ three times, it indicates a strong preference. Answer ‘B’ appeared once, and answer ‘C’ appeared once. Hence, we would choose answer ‘A’.
Doing so is a way to harness the AI’s flexibility while filtering out less common, potentially incorrect, results.
How self-consistency improves chain-of-thought prompt reasoning
To really appreciate self-consistency prompting, it helps to first understand another powerful technique it often partners with: Chain-of-Thought Prompting Technique (CoT)
Chain-of-Thought is like asking the AI to ‘show its work.’
Instead of just giving a final answer, we prompt the LLM to explain its reasoning process step-by-step. This encourages the AI to break down complex problems into smaller, manageable parts. This often leads to better and more logical answers. Think of it like solving a math problem – writing down each step helps you stay on track.
CoT prompting is great for tackling questions that need careful thinking. But it has a potential weak spot: what if the AI makes a mistake somewhere in its chain of thought?
One small error in a single step can lead the whole reasoning process astray. This mistake results in a wrong final answer!
It’s like making a calculation error early in that math problem – it affects everything that follows.
This is where Self-Consistency comes in as a fantastic partner.
It takes the step-by-step approach of CoT and makes it much more robust. Self-Consistency prompts the LLM to generate multiple different step-by-step reasoning paths. This happens instead of generating just one chain of thought for the same problem.
Here’s the key synergy: Self-consistency enhances the chain of thought reasoning in language models. It avoids relying on a single approach and not putting all its eggs in one basket.
It acknowledges that any single reasoning path might contain a flaw. By generating several different paths, it increases the chance that at least some of them will be correct.
This powerful combination of CoT and Self-Consistency is particularly effective for tasks that demand logical deduction and careful calculation. We see significant improvements in areas like:
- Arithmetic reasoning: Solving math word problems.
- Commonsense reasoning: Answering questions about everyday situations and logic.
- Symbolic reasoning: Handling logic puzzles or tasks that involve manipulating symbols according to rules.
We create a much more reliable system by using CoT to generate detailed reasoning. Self-Consistency checks the work across multiple attempts. This helps in getting precise answers from LLMs on complex tasks.
Self-consistency vs. universal self-consistency
Now that we understand Self-Consistency (SC), let’s introduce a related technique: Universal Self-Consistency (USC).
They share a similar name and goal – improving AI reliability. Yet, Self-Consistency and Universal Self-Consistency Prompting tackle slightly different challenges, and work in distinct ways.
Think back: Standard Self-Consistency works wonders when there’s likely one correct, final answer. It generates multiple reasoning paths and picks the most frequent answer.
This is perfect for what we call ‘convergent tasks.’ These are tasks where different lines of reasoning should ideally meet at a single right solution. Math problems or multiple-choice questions fit this description perfectly.
But what about tasks where there isn’t just one right answer?
What if you ask an AI to summarize a long document, write a creative story, or explain a complex concept?
Many different summaries or explanations could be good. These are ‘divergent tasks’ – tasks where reasoning can branch out into multiple valid possibilities. For these situations, simply picking the most frequent identical answer doesn’t make sense. This is because good answers might be phrased very differently.
This is where Universal Self-Consistency (USC) steps in.
Instead of focusing only on the final answer, universal self-consistency prompting looks at the entire response. This includes the reasoning or narrative, to find the most coherent or internally consistent one.
Here’s how universal self-consistency prompting often works:
- Generate multiple full responses: Just like self-consistency, you start by generating several whole outputs for the same prompt. For Universal Self-Consistency, these outputs might be longer explanations, summaries, or stories.
- Combine and evaluate: Instead of just tallying final answers, Universal Self-Consistency typically combines these different full responses. It then often uses the LLM itself in a ‘clever way’. It prompts the LLM again, showing it all the generated responses. Then it asks the LLM to analyze them. Finally, it selects the one that is the most logical, well-reasoned, or consistent overall.
The key difference between self-consistency and universal self-consistency
Self-Consistency (SC): Checks for the most frequent final answer. Best for tasks with a single correct outcome (convergent tasks).
Universal Self-Consistency (USC): Checks for the most consistent reasoning or narrative among multiple full responses. Better for tasks with multiple possible good outcomes (divergent, open-ended tasks).
When to use self-consistency prompting?
Use Self-Consistency (SC) if your task involves finding a specific, verifiable answer (e.g., solving math problems, classifying data, answering factual questions).
When to use universal self-consistency prompting?
Use Universal Self-Consistency (USC) if your task involves generating text, summaries, or explanations. It is also useful for tackling complex questions. This approach is beneficial when the quality of the reasoning or narrative matters more than finding one specific, identical answer.
Both techniques aim to improve the quality and reliability of LLM outputs. They use multiple attempts. Nevertheless, they apply this core idea in slightly different ways. This helps to suit different kinds of problems.
Self consistency prompting examples – practice these prompt on your own
Seeing how a technique works helps us understand it better. Let’s look at a few scenarios where Self-Consistency Prompting shines. Remember, the core idea is to generate multiple reasoning paths and choose the most common answer.
Self-consistency prompting example #1: Arithmetic Reasoning
Arithmetic word problems are classic examples where step-by-step reasoning is crucial, but errors can creep in.
The Problem: “A farmer had 15 sheep. All but 8 died. How many sheep does the farmer have left?” (This is a bit tricky!)
Here’s the self-consistency prompt you can paste on AI model of your choice:
Solve the following problem. Think step-by-step through 3 different possible reasoning paths:
Problem: A farmer had 15 sheep. All but 8 died. How many sheep does the farmer have left?
Path 1 Reasoning:
Path 1 Final Answer:
Path 2 Reasoning:
Path 2 Final Answer:
Path 3 Reasoning:
Path 3 Final Answer:
Overall Final Answer based on majority:
Here’s the output shared by ChatGPT free version:
Result: By looking at the three final answers (8, 8, 8), self-consistency takes the majority vote. The final answer is 8. It correctly identifies the most common (and correct) interpretation, filtering out the incorrect reasoning path.
ChatGPT is a mature and intelligent model. Yet, one can still use self-consistency to test responses. This ensures there is no hallucination.
Self-consistency prompting example #2: Commonsense Reasoning
Sometimes, questions rely on understanding everyday logic.
The Problem: “Can a fish survive long out of water?”
Here’s the self-consistency prompt you can paste on AI model of your choice:
Answer the question based on common sense. Provide 3 brief explanations from different viewpoints.
Question: Can a fish survive long out of water?
Viewpoint 1 Explanation & Answer:
Viewpoint 2 Explanation & Answer:
Viewpoint 3 Explanation & Answer:
Most Consistent Answer:
Here’s the output shared by ChatGPT free version:
Result: Viewpoint 1 and 2 are similar, while third is ambiguous answer. Considering majority, the answer is marked as “No”. Self-Consistency confirms this common-sense conclusion. Do note how ChatGPT can consider fishes that CAN live outside water too!
Self-consistency prompting example #3: Text Classification
Let’s classify the sentiment of a sentence.
The Sentence: “The movie wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t great either.”
Here’s the self-consistency prompt you can paste on AI model of your choice:
Classify the sentiment of the following sentence (Positive, Negative, or Neutral). Provide 3 separate lines of reasoning and classification.
Sentence: "The movie wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either."
Reasoning 1 & Classification 1:
Reasoning 2 & Classification 2:
Reasoning 3 & Classification 3:
Final Classification (Majority):
Here’s the output shared by ChatGPT free version:
Result: All paths classify the sentence as “Neutral”.The majority vote makes “Neutral” the final answer, capturing the nuanced sentiment well.
Self-consistency prompt ideas for you to try:
Want to see Self-Consistency in action yourself?
Copy and paste these prompts into your favorite LLM (like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.) and watch the results. Notice how asking for multiple independent paths helps stabilize the answer.
Idea 1: Math word problem self-consistency prompt
Solve the following math problem step-by-step. Imagine you are three different math students working independently. Show the work and final answer for each student.
Problem: A shopkeeper bought a batch of 50 pens for $40. She sold all the pens, charging $1.50 per pen. What was her total profit?
Student 1's Step-by-Step Work:
Student 1's Final Profit:
Student 2's Step-by-Step Work:
Student 2's Final Profit:
Student 3's Step-by-Step Work:
Student 3's Final Profit:
Based on the majority answer from the students, what is the final profit?
Idea 2: Ambiguous sentence classification self-consistency prompt
Classify the primary topic of the following news headline: "Jaguar introduces new electric model amid fierce market competition."
Provide three different possible classifications, with a brief reason for each. Consider different angles (e.g., company news, tech news, auto industry news).
Classification Angle 1 & Reason:
Classification Angle 1 Topic:
Classification Angle 2 & Reason:
Classification Angle 2 Topic:
Classification Angle 3 & Reason:
Classification Angle 3 Topic:
What is the most consistent or frequently occurring topic classification?
(Run this and capture the output. Does the AI suggest different valid classifications? Which one emerges as the most common focus?)
Idea 3: Simple symbolic reasoning self-consistency prompt
Consider these rules:
Rule 1: All circles are blue.
Rule 2: Shape X is a circle.
What color is Shape X?
Provide three independent lines of simple reasoning to determine the color of Shape X based *only* on the rules provided.
Reasoning Path 1:
Conclusion 1:
Reasoning Path 2:
Conclusion 2:
Reasoning Path 3:
Conclusion 3:
What is the definitive color based on the consistent conclusions?
Have you tried self-consistency prompt successfully? Let me know in the comments!
How to use self-consistency prompting for code?
Bringing Self-Consistency Prompting to life involves setting up a process. In this process, you programmatically generate multiple responses. Then, you find the most common one. Don’t worry, the logic is quite followable:
- Craft Your Base Prompt: Start with a clear prompt for the LLM. As we discussed, this often works best when merged with Chain-of-Thought (CoT), asking the AI to think step-by-step.
- Prepare the LLM Call: First, send your prompt to the LLM (usually via an API call). Make sure you can get different responses each time. A key setting for this is called
temperature. Settingtemperatureto 0 makes the AI very predictable and repetitive. To encourage diverse reasoning paths for Self-Consistency, you should set thetemperatureto a value greater than 0 (e.g., 0.5 or 0.7). This tells the AI to be a bit more creative and explore different ways of answering. - Loop the Request: Write code that sends your prompt to the LLM multiple times in a loop (e.g., 3, 5, 10, or more times). The more times you loop, the more responses you collect. This can sometimes lead to more reliable results. But, it also costs more time and resources.
- Extract Answers: From each response the LLM sends back, your code needs to pull out the specific final answer you care about. For example, the number in a math problem, the classification label, the yes/no, etc.
- Aggregate and Vote: Collect all the extracted final answers into a list. Then, implement logic to count the occurrences of each unique answer and find which one appears most often. This is the majority vote.
Self-consistency prompting code (Conceptual Example)
Please note: I have used Gemini 2.5 Pro to generate an example for me based on above process I wrote. I am not a coder. So, if there are any issues in this section, please mention in the comment and I will rectify it!
Here’s a simplified example using Python-like pseudocode to illustrate the flow. Imagine you have a function call_llm_api(prompt_text, temp) that handles the interaction with the LLM.
# 1. Define your base prompt (maybe using CoT)
my_prompt = """
Solve the following problem step-by-step:
Problem: When I was 6 my sister was half my age. Now I'm 70 how old is my sister?
Reasoning:
Final Answer:
"""
# Settings
num_responses_to_generate = 5 # How many times to ask
generation_temperature = 0.7 # Encourage diverse answers (> 0)
# List to store answers
all_final_answers = []
# 3. Loop the LLM call
print(f"Generating {num_responses_to_generate} responses...")
for i in range(num_responses_to_generate):
# Make the API call with non-zero temperature
response_text = call_llm_api(my_prompt, temp=generation_temperature)
# 4. Extract the final answer (this requires specific parsing based on LLM output format)
# Example: Assume the answer is always after "Final Answer:"
try:
extracted_answer = parse_final_answer(response_text) # You'd write this function
all_final_answers.append(extracted_answer)
print(f"Response {i+1} answer: {extracted_answer}")
except:
print(f"Response {i+1}: Could not parse answer.")
# 5. Aggregate and find the majority vote
def find_majority_answer(answers):
if not answers:
return "No answers generated."
# Count occurrences of each answer
counts = {}
for answer in answers:
counts[answer] = counts.get(answer, 0) + 1
# Find the answer with the highest count
majority_answer = max(counts, key=counts.get)
return majority_answer
final_consistent_answer = find_majority_answer(all_final_answers)
print(f"\nMost consistent answer: {final_consistent_answer}")
# --- Helper function placeholder ---
def parse_final_answer(text):
# In a real scenario, you'd implement logic here to find the answer reliably
# For this example, let's assume it finds the number after "Final Answer: "
marker = "Final Answer:"
if marker in text:
# Find text after marker, strip whitespace, maybe convert to number
answer_part = text.split(marker)[1].strip()
# Simple extraction - real case might need more robustness
return answer_part.split()[0] # Take the first word/number after marker
else:
raise ValueError("Final Answer marker not found")
(Note: The call_llm_api and parse_final_answer functions are placeholders. You would need to implement them based on the specific LLM API you are using.)
Tools and Frameworks: What about LangChain?
Frameworks like LangChain are popular for building applications with LLMs. They provide tools to chain commands, manage prompts, and interact with different models.
While self-consistency prompting LangChain support might not exist as a single, dedicated out-of-the-box function. Thought, this depends on the version and community modules, you can definitely implement the Self-Consistency pattern using LangChain’s building blocks. You can use LangChain to manage the multiple LLM calls. These can potentially be in parallel. Then, you add your own Python code to do the answer extraction. You also include the majority voting logic described above.
Find more resources: self-consistency prompting on GitHub
If you’re looking for more code examples, searching on GitHub is a good idea. It is also a good place to find different ways to implement this. Try searching for terms like self consistency prompting github, “LLM majority voting,”. You can also look for repositories linked to the original research paper (Wang et al., 2022). You might find libraries or code snippets shared by the AI research community.
Best practices for effective self-consistency prompting
Here are some best practices to keep in mind when you implement Self-Consistency Prompting:
Start with a strong base prompt:
Your first instruction to the LLM is crucial. Make it clear and unambiguous.
I have already discussed pairing Self-Consistency with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) – definitely continue doing that!
Ask the AI to think step-by-step.
You can often strengthen your prompt further using “Few-Shot” prompting. This means including one or two solved examples of the task directly within your prompt. Show the question, the desired step-by-step thinking, and the final answer format. This gives the AI a clear template to follow.
Choose the right number of generations:
How many times should you ask the LLM to generate a response while using self-consistency prompting?
Generating more responses (say, 10 instead of 3) increases the chances that the correct answer will appear multiple times. It can win the majority vote. Nonetheless, each generation takes time and may cost money if you’re using a paid API. There’s a trade-off between reliability and resources.
My recommendation: Start with a smaller number (like 3 or 5 responses). Test if this consistently improves your results compared to a single prompt. If needed, you can gradually increase the number of generations and see if it provides further benefits.
Use appropriate aggregation (usually majority vote):
For standard Self-Consistency, the goal is to find the most commonly occurring answer among the different reasoning paths.
Thus, “majority vote” is almost always the right way to combine the results.
Count which answer appears most often and select that one. Other techniques like averaging exist for numerical data. Nonetheless, they often don’t fit Self-Consistency well. Different reasoning paths might lead to numerically different answers. These answers may arise for entirely different and potentially incorrect reasons. Stick with the consensus.
Tune temperature for optimal diversity:
Temperature controls the randomness or creativity of the LLM.
For Self-Consistency, you need temperature > 0 (e.g., 0.5 to 1.0) to encourage diverse reasoning paths. But, setting it too high might lead to irrelevant or nonsensical outputs.
My recommendation: You might need to experiment a bit. Start with a moderate temperature (like 0.7). If your outputs are too similar, try increasing it slightly. If they become too wild or off-topic, try decreasing it. Find the sweet spot that gives varied valid attempts at reasoning.
Plan for robust answer extraction:
Getting the final answer out of each block of text the LLM generates can sometimes be tricky. The AI might format its response slightly differently each time, even if you provide instructions.
My recommendation: Design your prompt to ask for the final answer in a very specific format (e.g., always end with Final Answer: [The Answer]). Then, write your code to reliably find and extract this specific part, even if there’s extra text around it. Robust parsing logic here prevents errors in your aggregation step.
Do you have any more hacks on using self-consistency prompting? – Let me know in the comments!
My curated sources for further reading
Self-Consistency Prompting isn’t just a clever idea someone stumbled upon. It emerged from careful research focused on making Large Language Models (LLMs) better thinkers.
For writing this guide, I am sharing the resources I used, including the original paper that you can explore.
The foundational self consistency prompting paper that introduced this technique is:
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., & Zhou, D. (2022) : Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
This paper demonstrated how generating diverse reasoning paths (using Chain-of-Thought) and selecting the most common answer boosted LLM performance. This improvement was significant on tasks involving arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic reasoning. They showed through experiments that this approach was surprisingly effective.
Further resources:
- Learn Prompting – Self-Consistency – read
- Prompting Guide – Consistency Techniques – read
- Medium – Self-Consistency and Universal Self-Consistency Prompting – read
- DataCamp – Advanced Prompt Engineering Strategies – read
I have covered more prompt engineering techniques and best practices here:
- What is tree of thoughts prompting – with examples – read
- Markdown Prompting In AI Prompt Engineering Explained – Examples + Tips – read
- Why Structuring or Formatting Is Crucial In Prompt Engineering? – read
- 20 Prompt Engineering and Generative AI community list across Slack, Discord, Reddit, etc – read
- 16 prompt management tools and adoption best practices – read
I will continue to cover about latest prompt engineering techniques with a strong focus on practical use case and examples. Subscribe to get the latest guides and tutorials:
This blog post is written using resources of Merrative. We are a publishing talent marketplace that helps you create publications and content libraries.
Get in touch if you would like to create a content library like ours. We specialize in the niche of Applied AI, Technology, Machine Learning, or Data Science.
Leave a Reply