LLMs discover latent planning strategies up to five steps during training and execute them up to eight steps at test time, with larger models reaching seven under few-shot prompting, revealing a dissociation between discovery and execution.
Large language models are zero-shot reasoners
3 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
3
Pith papers citing it
verdicts
UNVERDICTED 3representative citing papers
Pre-training loss predicts LLM math reasoning better than parameter count; rejection sampling fine-tuning with diverse paths raises LLaMA-7B accuracy on GSM8K from 35.9% with SFT to 49.3%.
Self-Debugging teaches LLMs to identify and fix their own code errors through rubber-duck-style natural language explanations and execution feedback, delivering 2-12% gains over baselines on Spider, TransCoder, and MBPP.
citing papers explorer
-
The Depth Ceiling: On the Limits of Large Language Models in Discovering Latent Planning
LLMs discover latent planning strategies up to five steps during training and execute them up to eight steps at test time, with larger models reaching seven under few-shot prompting, revealing a dissociation between discovery and execution.
-
Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models
Pre-training loss predicts LLM math reasoning better than parameter count; rejection sampling fine-tuning with diverse paths raises LLaMA-7B accuracy on GSM8K from 35.9% with SFT to 49.3%.
-
Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug
Self-Debugging teaches LLMs to identify and fix their own code errors through rubber-duck-style natural language explanations and execution feedback, delivering 2-12% gains over baselines on Spider, TransCoder, and MBPP.