Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs' Errors to Boost for Reasoning

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 2403.20046 v2 pith:ODJEYABJ submitted 2024-03-29 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsmistakescorrectreasoningerrorslearnpromptingbenefits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent works have shown the benefits to LLMs from fine-tuning golden-standard Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales or using them as correct examples in few-shot prompting. While humans can indeed imitate correct examples, learning from our mistakes is another vital aspect of human cognition. Hence, a question naturally arises: \textit{can LLMs learn and benefit from their mistakes, especially for their reasoning? } This study investigates this problem from both the prompting and model-tuning perspectives. We begin by introducing \textsc{CoTErrorSet}, a new benchmark with 609,432 questions, each designed with both correct and error references, and demonstrating the types and reasons for making such mistakes. To explore the effectiveness of those mistakes, we design two methods: (1) \textbf{Self-rethinking} prompting guides LLMs to rethink whether they have made similar previous mistakes; and (2) \textbf{Mistake tuning} involves finetuning models in both correct and incorrect reasoning domains, rather than only tuning models to learn ground truth in traditional methodology. We conduct a series of experiments to prove LLMs can obtain benefits from mistakes in both directions. Our two methods offer potentially cost-effective strategies by leveraging errors to enhance reasoning capabilities, which costs significantly less than creating meticulously hand-crafted golden references. We ultimately make a thorough analysis of the reasons behind LLMs' errors, which provides directions that future research needs to overcome. \textsc{CoTErrorSet} will be published soon on \texttt{\url{https://github.com/YookiTong/Learn-from-Mistakes-CotErrorSet}}.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. FVRuleLearner: Operator-Level Reasoning Tree (Op-Tree)-Based Rules Learning for Formal Verification

    cs.AR 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    FVRuleLearner retrieves learned operator-level reasoning rules to boost the functional correctness of LLM-generated SystemVerilog assertions by roughly 30 percentage points over simple prompting baselines.

  2. Unveiling Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: Reality or Mirage?

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs perform much worse on causal questions built from post-cutoff news articles, suggesting their apparent causal skill is mostly memorization, and a general-knowledge prompt method only partly closes the gap.

  3. Soft Guidance Starts to Outperform CoT Prompting as LLMs Improve

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On GSM8K, zero-shot free-form generation beats few-shot CoT prompting for Mathstral, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3.1, suggesting standard CoT baselines can underestimate modern reasoning models.

  4. Thinking Beyond Tokens: From Brain-Inspired Intelligence to Cognitive Foundations for Artificial General Intelligence and its Societal Impact

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A broad survey arguing that AGI requires modular, memory-augmented, embodied architectures rather than scaled-up token prediction, with a brief proposal to decompose intelligence into five components.

Pith tools