Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across natural language reasoning tasks, yet their reasoning processes remain brittle and difficult to interpret. Prompting techniques like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) enhance reliability by eliciting intermediate reasoning steps or aggregating multiple outputs. However, they lack mechanisms for enforcing logical structure and assessing internal coherence. We introduce Theorem-of-Thought (ToTh), a novel framework that models reasoning as collaboration among three parallel agents, each simulating a distinct mode of inference: abductive, deductive, and inductive. Each agent produces a reasoning trace, which is structured into a formal reasoning graph. To evaluate consistency, we apply Bayesian belief propagation guided by natural language inference (NLI), assigning confidence scores to each step. The most coherent graph is selected to derive the final answer. Experiments on symbolic (WebOfLies) and numerical (MultiArith) reasoning benchmarks show that ToTh consistently outperforms CoT, Self-Consistency, and CoT-Decoding across multiple LLMs, while producing interpretable and logically grounded reasoning chains. Our findings suggest a promising direction for building more robust and cognitively inspired LLM reasoning. The implementation is available at https://github.com/KurbanIntelligenceLab/theorem-of-thought.

State-of-the-art task-oriented dialogue systems typically rely on task-specific ontologies for fulfilling user queries. The majority of task-oriented dialogue data, such as customer service recordings, comes without ontology and annotation. Such ontologies are normally built manually, limiting the application of specialised systems. Dialogue ontology construction is an approach for automating that process and typically consists of two steps: term extraction and relation extraction. In this work, we focus on relation extraction in a transfer learning set-up. To improve the generalisation, we propose an extension to the decoding mechanism of large language models. We adapt Chain-of-Thought (CoT) decoding, recently developed for reasoning problems, to generative relation extraction. Here, we generate multiple branches in the decoding space and select the relations based on a confidence threshold. By constraining the decoding to ontology terms and relations, we aim to decrease the risk of hallucination. We conduct extensive experimentation on two widely used datasets and find improvements in performance on target ontology for source fine-tuned and one-shot prompted large language models.

In enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), prior research primarily focuses on specific prompting techniques such as few-shot or zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. These methods, while effective, often involve manually intensive prompt engineering. Our study takes a novel approach by asking: Can LLMs reason effectively without prompting? Our findings reveal that, intriguingly, CoT reasoning paths can be elicited from pre-trained LLMs by simply altering the \textit{decoding} process. Rather than conventional greedy decoding, we investigate the top-$k$ alternative tokens, uncovering that CoT paths are frequently inherent in these sequences. This approach not only bypasses the confounders of prompting but also allows us to assess the LLMs' \textit{intrinsic} reasoning abilities. Moreover, we observe that the presence of a CoT in the decoding path correlates with a higher confidence in the model's decoded answer. This confidence metric effectively differentiates between CoT and non-CoT paths. Extensive empirical studies on various reasoning benchmarks show that the proposed CoT-decoding substantially outperforms the standard greedy decoding.