FOR-Prompting: From Objection to Revision via an Asymmetric Prompting Protocol

Abstract

Reasoning protocols such as Chain of Thought (CoT) and Tree of Thought (ToT) organize internal deliberation but lack an explicit mechanism for external questioning that elicits self-revision. We present FOR-Prompting (From Objection to Revision Prompting), an asymmetric protocol where a Defender proposes an answer, an Debater (Questioner) raises question-style objections with no direct fixes, and a Host optionally synthesizes the final output. Across GSM8K, FOR-Prompting matches the accuracy of CoT and consistently improves over single-prompting when evaluated under identical model backbones. On small-scale open-source models (e.g., LLaMA-3.2-1B), FOR-Prompting yields substantial gains over direct prompting and performs comparably to lightweight reasoning baselines, highlighting its promise for low-resource and on-device settings. Cross-model role-swapping further shows that performance is primarily determined by the Defender, enabling small models to act effectively as Questioners. Beyond structured math tasks, FOR-Prompting supports refinement in open-ended and multi-stage tasks: qualitative analysis shows improved exploration, coverage, and specificity, and a blind study of human preferences found that participants preferred FOR-Prompting outputs over strong LLM baselines in an itinerary-planning scenario. The protocol is model-agnostic and operates purely through role-structured prompting, requiring no training, access to model internals, or symmetrically strong agents. FOR-Prompting therefore enables scalable study of objection-driven reasoning and offers a practical mechanism for automated iterative refinement across both hosted and local LLMs.