Recently, increasing attention has been focused on improving the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform complex reasoning. Advanced methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants, are found to enhance their reasoning skills by designing suitable prompts or breaking down complex problems into more manageable sub-problems. However, little concentration has been put on exploring the reasoning process, i.e., we discovered that most methods resort to Direct Reasoning (DR) and disregard Indirect Reasoning (IR). This can make LLMs difficult to solve IR tasks, which are often encountered in the real world. To address this issue, we propose a Direct-Indirect Reasoning (DIR) method, which considers DR and IR as multiple parallel reasoning paths that are merged to derive the final answer. We stimulate LLMs to implement IR by crafting prompt templates incorporating the principles of contrapositive and contradiction. These templates trigger LLMs to assume the negation of the conclusion as true, combine it with the premises to deduce a conclusion, and utilize the logical equivalence of the contrapositive to enhance their comprehension of the rules used in the reasoning process. Our DIR method is simple yet effective and can be straightforwardly integrated with existing variants of CoT methods. Experimental results on four datasets related to logical reasoning and mathematic proof demonstrate that our DIR method, when combined with various baseline methods, significantly outperforms all the original methods.

Nowadays, single Large Language Model (LLM) struggles with critical issues such as hallucination and inadequate reasoning abilities. To mitigate these issues, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has emerged as an effective strategy, where LLM agents engage in in-depth debates with others on tasks. However, existing MAD methods face two major issues: (a) too lengthy input contexts, which causes LLM agents to get lost in plenty of input information and experiences performance drop; and (b) the overconfidence dilemma, where self-assured LLM agents dominate the debate, leading to low debating effectiveness. To address these limitations, we propose a novel MAD method called ”CortexDebate”. Inspired by the human brain’s tendency to establish a sparse and dynamically optimized network among cortical areas governed by white matter, CortexDebate constructs a sparse debating graph among LLM agents, where each LLM agent only debates with the ones that are helpful to it. To optimize the graph, we propose a module named McKinsey-based Debate Matter (MDM), which acts as an artificial analog to white matter. By integrating the McKinsey Trust Formula, a well-established measure of trustworthiness from sociology, MDM enables credible evaluations that guide graph optimization. The effectiveness of our CortexDebate has been well demonstrated by extensive experimental results across eight datasets from four task types.