Reversing Chain-of-Thought
If your reasoning is correct, it should work in reverse. Reversing CoT verifies answers by tracing logic backwards from conclusion to premises — catching errors that forward-only reasoning misses.
Introduced: Reversing Chain-of-Thought was published in 2023 by Xue et al. The framework applies the mathematical concept of inverse operations to verify reasoning chains. Just as mathematicians verify solutions by working backwards through equations, Reversing CoT takes a completed chain of reasoning and traces it in reverse — from conclusion back to premises — to check whether each logical step holds when examined from the opposite direction.
Modern LLM Status: The backward-verification approach is a practical and effective prompt engineering pattern. Modern LLMs handle "work backwards to check your answer" instructions well, executing reverse reasoning chains with good fidelity. The technique is especially effective for mathematics, algebra, logic puzzles, and any domain where operations have well-defined inverses. Combining forward reasoning with backward verification in a single prompt produces more reliable outputs than forward reasoning alone.
Proof by Reversal
When you solve 3x + 5 = 20 and get x = 5, you verify by plugging back in: 3(5) + 5 = 20. That checks out. This is Reversing Chain-of-Thought applied to all reasoning — not just math.
If your forward chain says "A leads to B leads to C," work backwards: does C imply B? Does B imply A? If the reverse chain reconstructs the original starting conditions, the forward reasoning holds. If it doesn't reach the starting conditions, the forward reasoning had an error somewhere — even if it looked plausible going forward.
Think of it like reading a proof backwards. Every step that was valid going forward must also be valid in reverse. If you hit a gap, that gap was always there — you just couldn't see it from the forward direction.
Forward reasoning can contain compensating errors — two mistakes that cancel each other out, producing a correct-looking answer through flawed logic. It can also contain reasoning gaps — unjustified jumps from one step to the next that seem natural going forward.
Reversing forces you to justify each transition independently from the opposite direction. An error that slips past going forward often becomes obvious going backward, because the inverse step doesn't produce the expected intermediate result.
The Reversing CoT Process
Four steps from forward solution to backward verification
Solve Forward
Apply standard chain-of-thought reasoning to arrive at an answer. This is the claim to be verified — the output of your normal reasoning process, produced without any special verification steps.
Problem: "A train travels at 60 mph for 2.5 hours. How far does it go?" Forward reasoning: Distance = speed x time = 60 x 2.5 = 150 miles.
Start from the Answer
Take the conclusion and work backwards, applying inverse operations at each step. If you multiplied going forward, divide going backward. If you added, subtract. Reconstruct the original conditions from the answer.
Reverse: Start with 150 miles. Divide by time: 150 / 2.5 = 60 mph. Does this match the given speed? Yes — the original speed was 60 mph.
Compare with Original
Check whether the backward chain reconstructs the original problem conditions exactly. Every value derived by reversal should match the corresponding value in the original problem statement.
Original conditions: 60 mph speed, 2.5 hours duration. Backward-derived: 60 mph from 150 miles and 2.5 hours. All values match — verification complete.
Identify Discrepancies
If backward reconstruction doesn't match the original conditions, the divergence point reveals exactly where the forward reasoning went wrong. This pinpoints the error rather than just flagging the answer as incorrect.
If the backward chain yielded 65 mph but the original stated 60 mph, the forward calculation was wrong. Re-examine: was it really 60 x 2.5, or was a different computation performed? The mismatch localizes the error.
See the Difference
Forward-only vs forward-and-reverse verification
Forward Only
"A recipe calls for 2/3 cup of flour, doubled. How much flour?"
"2/3 doubled = 2/3 + 2/3 = 4/3 cups."
No backward check performed. The answer stands without any validation step.
Forward + Reverse
"A recipe calls for 2/3 cup of flour, doubled. How much flour?"
"2/3 doubled = 2/3 + 2/3 = 4/3 cups."
"Start with 4/3. Halve it: 4/3 / 2 = 4/6 = 2/3. Does this match the original amount? Yes: 2/3 cup."
Natural Language Works Too
While structured frameworks and contextual labels are powerful tools, LLMs are exceptionally good at understanding natural language. As long as your prompt contains the actual contextual information needed to create, answer, or deliver the response you’re looking for — the who, what, why, and constraints — the AI can produce complete and accurate results whether you use a formal framework or plain conversational language. But even in 2026, with the best prompts, verifying AI output is always a necessary step.
Reversing CoT in Action
See backward verification catch what forward reasoning misses
Solve: 3(x + 2) - 5 = 16
Step 1: Expand: 3x + 6 - 5 = 16
Step 2: Simplify (error here): 3x - 1 = 16 (should be 3x + 1 = 16)
Step 3: Add 1: 3x = 17
Step 4: Divide by 3: x = 17/3 = 5.67
Substitute x = 17/3 into original equation:
3(17/3 + 2) - 5 = 3(17/3 + 6/3) - 5 = 3(23/3) - 5 = 23 - 5 = 18
Expected: 16
Got: 18
The reverse check fails — 18 does not equal 16. Re-examining Step 2: 6 - 5 = 1, not -1. The sign error is exposed. Correcting: 3x + 1 = 16, so 3x = 15, x = 5. Reverse verify: 3(5 + 2) - 5 = 21 - 5 = 16. Now it matches.
A store buys a jacket for $80 and marks it up by 25%. What is the selling price?
Student's forward reasoning: "I need to find the price where removing 25% gives me $80." So: $80 = price - 0.25 x price = 0.75 x price. Therefore price = $80 / 0.75 = $106.67.
The student confused markup (percentage of cost) with margin (percentage of selling price).
Reverse from $106.67: Remove the "25% markup" to recover the original cost.
If markup means 25% of cost: $106.67 - (0.25 x $80) = $106.67 - $20 = $86.67. This does NOT equal $80. Mismatch detected.
Correct approach: Markup of 25% means 25% of cost price. Selling price = $80 + (0.25 x $80) = $80 + $20 = $100.
Reverse verify: $100 - (0.25 x $80) = $100 - $20 = $80. Matches the original cost. The backward check reveals the student applied the percentage to the wrong base.
Three friends — Alice, Bob, and Carol — sit in seats 1, 2, and 3.
Constraints: (1) Alice doesn't sit in seat 1. (2) Bob sits next to Carol. (3) Carol doesn't sit in seat 3.
Forward reasoning: "Carol can't be in seat 3, so Carol is in seat 1 or 2. Bob must be next to Carol. If Carol is in seat 1, Bob is in seat 2, and Alice is in seat 3."
Proposed solution: Carol = Seat 1, Bob = Seat 2, Alice = Seat 3.
Check each constraint against the proposed solution:
Constraint 3: "Carol doesn't sit in seat 3." Carol is in seat 1. Satisfied.
Constraint 2: "Bob sits next to Carol." Bob is in seat 2, Carol in seat 1. Seats 1 and 2 are adjacent. Satisfied.
Constraint 1: "Alice doesn't sit in seat 1." Alice is in seat 3. Satisfied.
All three constraints verified against the solution. If any constraint had failed — say Alice had been placed in seat 1 — the backward check would have immediately identified the violated rule and pinpointed the error.
When to Use Reversing CoT
Best for domains where operations have well-defined inverses
Perfect For
When operations have clear inverses: addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, exponents/roots. Backward computation definitively confirms or refutes the forward answer.
When you can check each constraint against the proposed solution. Working backwards through conditions catches violated rules that were overlooked going forward.
When you can run inputs through generated code and verify outputs match expectations. Feed expected outputs back through inverse logic to confirm correctness.
When solutions can be verified by substitution back into the original equation. This is the most classic application of backward verification.
Skip It When
When there's no clear inverse operation. Opinions, creative writing, and subjective judgments can't be meaningfully reversed to verify correctness.
When the forward process can't practically be reversed. Hashing, lossy transformations, and many-to-one mappings lack the invertibility that backward verification requires.
When multiple correct answers exist and backward verification is ambiguous. If many paths lead to the same conclusion, reversal doesn't uniquely reconstruct the premises.
Use Cases
Where backward verification delivers the most value
Engineering Calculations
Verify structural, electrical, or mechanical computations by reversing formulas. Calculate load capacity forward, then work backward from the result to recover original material properties.
Financial Reconciliation
Work backwards from totals to verify individual transactions sum correctly. Start from a final balance and reverse each transaction to confirm the opening balance matches records.
Data Transformations
Verify ETL pipelines by reversing transformations to recover source data. If forward processing is correct, reversing the pipeline should reconstruct the original dataset.
Test Case Validation
Generate expected outputs forward, then verify inputs backward. Given the expected output of a function, work backwards to confirm the input conditions that would produce it.
Translation Verification
Translate forward from one language to another, then translate back to check fidelity. Significant divergence between the original and the back-translation signals translation errors.
Scheduling Verification
Work backwards from deadlines to verify task start dates and dependencies. If the schedule is correct, backward computation from the delivery date should reconstruct all milestone dates.
Where Reversing CoT Fits
Reversing CoT bridges basic reasoning and systematic verification
Use Reversing CoT for mathematical and logical verification where operations have clear inverses, then Chain-of-Verification for factual claims that can't be reversed. Together they cover both computable and non-computable verification — backward proof for math, systematic questions for facts.
Related Techniques
Explore complementary verification and reasoning techniques
Verify Your Reasoning
Build backward-verified prompts or explore more verification frameworks.