Pith. sign in

REVIEW 17 cited by

Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2209.07686 v2 pith:VCVN5PI7 submitted 2022-09-16 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords patternstextfew-shotpromptinglanguagemodelsacrossintermediate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought (CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps. Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second, our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns, and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 17 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Last Word Often Wins: A Format Confound in Chain-of-Thought Corruption Studies

    cs.LG 2026-05 accept novelty 8.0

    Corruption studies of CoT faithfulness largely measure explicit answer placement in prompt format rather than computational importance of reasoning steps.

  2. Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolution

    cs.CL 2023-09 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Promptbreeder evolves both task prompts and the mutation prompts that improve them using LLMs, outperforming Chain-of-Thought and Plan-and-Solve on arithmetic and commonsense reasoning benchmarks.

  3. PAL: Program-aided Language Models

    cs.CL 2022-11 conditional novelty 8.0

    PAL improves few-shot reasoning accuracy by having LLMs generate executable programs rather than text-based chains of thought, outperforming much larger models on math and logic benchmarks.

  4. Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?

    cs.CL 2022-02 accept novelty 8.0

    Randomly replacing labels in in-context demonstrations barely hurts performance, showing that label space, input distribution, and sequence format drive in-context learning more than ground-truth labels.

  5. What Makes Chain-of-Thought Work at Probe Time? Local Co-occurrence Rather Than Global Derivation

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CoT probe-time gains arise primarily from lexical activation and short-range token co-occurrence rather than sentence-level logical derivation.

  6. The Readout Shortcut: Positional Number Copying Dominates Arithmetic CoT Readout in Small Language Models

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    In 1-3B instruction-tuned LMs on GSM8K, arithmetic CoT readout is dominated by positional copying of the trailing number before the answer delimiter, accounting for 54-92 percentage points of accuracy.

  7. From Noise to Diversity: Random Embedding Injection in LLM Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    Random Soft Prompts (RSPs) sampled from the embedding distribution improve Pass@N on reasoning benchmarks by increasing early-stage token diversity without any training.

  8. The Last Word Often Wins: A Format Confound in Chain-of-Thought Corruption Studies

    cs.LG 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0

    Corruption studies on CoT chains detect the position of explicit answer statements rather than computational steps, as evidenced by format ablations collapsing suffix sensitivity 19x and models following conflicting a...

  9. Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Coconut lets LLMs perform reasoning directly in continuous latent space by recycling hidden states as inputs, outperforming standard chain-of-thought on search-intensive logical tasks with better accuracy-efficiency t...

  10. Large Language Models as Optimizers

    cs.LG 2023-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Large language models can optimize by being prompted with histories of past solutions and scores to propose better ones, producing prompts that raise accuracy up to 8% on GSM8K and 50% on Big-Bench Hard over human-des...

  11. Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    cs.AI 2023-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Chain-of-Thought reasoning in LLMs is often unfaithful, with models relying on it variably by task and less so as models scale larger.

  12. UNIBROWSE: A Data-to-Agent Framework for Multimodal BrowseComp

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A unified KG-plus-live-web data pipeline covering all three multimodal BrowseComp information-flow patterns, plus an exploration-degree filter, yields a 35B agent at 54.4 avg accuracy.

  13. Chains That See, Answers That Don't: A Multi-Aspect Evaluation Recipe for Forced Chain-of-Thought on Video-MME

    cs.CV 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Forced CoT produces video-dependent reasoning chains but does not improve MCQ accuracy on Qwen2.5-VL with Video-MME and causes a small drop on the 7B variant.

  14. Rethinking Dense Sequential Chains: Reasoning Language Models Can Extract Answers from Sparse, Order-Shuffling Chain-of-Thoughts

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Reasoning language models extract answers from sparse, order-shuffled chain-of-thought traces with little accuracy loss.

  15. Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks

    cs.CL 2023-03 accept novelty 6.0

    Pre-trained LLMs using recursive criticism and improvement prompting achieve state-of-the-art results on the MiniWoB++ computer task benchmark with only a handful of demonstrations and no task-specific reward function.

  16. ART: Automatic multi-step reasoning and tool-use for large language models

    cs.CL 2023-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ART automatically generates multi-step reasoning programs with tool integration for LLMs, yielding substantial gains over few-shot and auto-CoT prompting on BigBench and MMLU while matching hand-crafted CoT on most tasks.

  17. NoisyCoconut: Counterfactual Consensus via Latent Space Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Injecting noise into LLM latent trajectories creates diverse reasoning paths whose agreement acts as a confidence signal for selective abstention, cutting error rates from 40-70% to under 15% on math tasks.