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
-
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.