Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

A transformer trained on integer arithmetic learns human-like subtasks in order, and human strategies lift it to near-perfect accuracy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 18:48 UTC pith:FC73E44T

load-bearing objection A useful extension of arithmetic interpretability to multiplication and division, but the cognitive-overlap claim outruns the evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17166 v1 pith:FC73E44T submitted 2026-07-19 cs.LG

Explaining and Tuning Transformer-based LLMs in Arithmetic Tasks with Human Strategies

Luyu Qiu , Jianing Li , Hwanhee Kim , Xiaoyong Wei , Yueyuan Zheng , Janet Hsiao , Lei Chen This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords transformer interpretabilityarithmetic reasoningsubtask decompositionlearning curve analysisattention head specializationchain-of-thought promptinghuman cognitive strategiesnext-token prediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

These authors set out to explain why a transformer trained from scratch on integer arithmetic still makes elementary mistakes, and to test whether techniques that work for human learners also fix machine learners. They decompose addition, multiplication, and division into a small set of digit-pair subtasks—base addition, carry-making, base multiplication, base division, and the carry or remainder propagation steps that connect them—and show that per-digit loss curves converge in a fixed order: the simplest base operation first, then the carry-dependent steps. They then apply three human pedagogical tools—reversing the answer order, chain-of-thought prompting, and increasing network depth—and report that each attacks a specific bottleneck identified by the analysis, with combinations reaching near-100 percent accuracy. If this account is right, a transformer's arithmetic progress is not a black-box scramble but a staged, structured learning process that can be diagnosed and improved the way a teacher would improve a student's arithmetic.

Core claim

The central claim is that a plain single-layer transformer trained on multi-digit addition, multiplication, and division does not memorize answers wholesale. It learns the same component skills that human arithmetic learners use—base add, make carry, make sum nine, base multiply, base divide, previous-digit divide, answer divide—and it learns them in order of increasing difficulty, with the base digit-pair operation converging first and the cascading carry or remainder operations converging last. Because the model's arithmetic is structured this way, human problem-solving strategies transfer: writing the answer in reverse, prompting for a chain of thought, and increasing model depth each rem

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a task-decomposition formula in which every answer digit is expressed as a sum of functions of digit pairs, deliberately aligned with self-attention's pairwise token interactions. From that formula the authors define per-operation subtask taxonomies (BA, MC, MS9; BM, MC, UC, UCFC; BD, PDD, AD) and then track each subtask's learning curve, ablate individual attention heads to measure each subtask's sensitivity, and visualize attention maps to argue that the transformer assigns distinct heads to distinct subtasks and combines their outputs in the MLP layer. This decomposition is what converts 'the model is bad at arithmetic' into 'the model falters at carry propag

Load-bearing premise

The account rests on the premise that the hand-defined subtasks—base add, make carry, make sum nine, base multiply, base divide, and the propagation steps—are what the transformer actually computes internally; if the model reaches the same accuracy through a different algorithm, the claimed learning order and head specialization explanation loses its foundation.

What would settle it

Train the same single-layer architecture on the same arithmetic data under several random seeds, and check whether the same attention head keeps implementing the same subtask. If head-to-subtask assignments vary from seed to seed while accuracy stays comparable, or if an equally simple alternative partition of the data (e.g., column-wise vs. whole-number grouping) fits the loss curves and ablations just as well, then the claim that the human-style subtask taxonomy is the model's stable internal algorithm is not supported.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Reversing the order of output digits helps multiplication, because the model can reuse already-predicted answer digits as carry and overlap cues; the same reversal hurts division, whose calculation flows from the most significant digit.
  • Chain-of-thought inputs that break multi-digit multiplication into single-digit multiplications and additions, and division into successive remainder steps, allow a single-layer transformer to solve problems it otherwise fails.
  • Increasing model depth supplies the capacity to carry intermediate results, and depth combined with chain-of-thought raises multiplication and division accuracy to 100 percent in the paper's experiments.
  • A small number of attention heads (three, in the paper's setting) is sufficient once each head takes a distinct subtask; extra heads do not help because the bottleneck is task separation, not head count.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If the subtask taxonomy is genuinely the model's internal algorithm, then arithmetic errors in larger language models could be diagnosed at the subtask level—for instance, a model that fails on cascading-carry columns should show errors concentrated in UCFC-like positions—and could be patched with targeted prompts or data rather than full retraining.
  • Editorial inference: The reversal result suggests a general design principle for next-token prediction models: reliability improves when the output order follows the dependency order of the computation. That principle should extend beyond arithmetic to any compositional generation task.
  • Editorial inference: A direct testable extension is to train on a human-style curriculum, presenting simpler subtasks first in the data stream; the paper's learning-order story predicts this alone should accelerate convergence, without needing CoT or extra depth.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper trains a small (1-layer, 512-dimension) decoder-only transformer from scratch on integer addition, multiplication, and division, and claims that (i) the model decomposes each operation into human-like subtasks (BA/MC/MS9 for addition, BM/CA/UCFC for multiplication, BD/PDD/AD for division), (ii) it learns these subtasks in increasing order of difficulty, mirroring human learners, and (iii) human-inspired interventions—reversing output digits, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, and increasing model depth—substantially improve accuracy. The evidence consists of loss-curve analyses sliced along the proposed subtasks, attention-map visualizations, and attention-head ablation tables. The headline empirical results in Table 8 show large accuracy gains from CoT and depth (e.g., multiplication from 0.0% to 100%, division to 100%). The paper frames these findings as evidence that transformer-based LLMs may share cognitive processes with human arithmetic learners.

Significance. If the interpretive claims were rigorously established, the paper would make a valuable connection between mechanistic interpretability and cognitive science: a concrete demonstration that a trained transformer decomposes arithmetic into learnable subtasks with a human-like difficulty ordering, and that human pedagogical techniques transfer to model training. The empirical interventions themselves (reversal, CoT, depth) are useful and plausible, and the attention-ablation tables provide a reproducible style of evidence. However, the central interpretational claim is currently supported only by a circular analysis: the subtask taxonomy is hand-defined, and the same taxonomy is used to slice loss curves, label attention heads, and select ablation samples. This makes the paper's main thesis about human-like learning premature. The work also uses a toy model while making claims about 'LLMs' and 'cognitive processes,' so the significance is contingent on either substantial reframing or additional mechanistic validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1–§4.3, Eq. (1)–(4)] The subtask decomposition is asserted, not derived. The text states 'we assert the transformer utilizes several basic subtasks' (e.g., §4.1, §4.2.1, §4.3.1). The subsequent validation is circular: learning curves are computed on 'non-overlapping subsets aligned to' these subtasks (Figs. 4, 5, 10), attention heads are chosen 'that yielded the clearest separation of tasks' (§4.1 Visualization Analysis), and the ablation studies (Tables 4–6) test only samples already classified by the same taxonomy. This confirms that the taxonomy can be used to label data and heads, but it does not establish that the model actually computes these functions. An independent, mechanistic test is needed—for example, activation patching or probing that does not rely on the same hand-defined categories—or the claims must be restricted to the statement that the taxonomy is a useful descriptive tool.
  2. [Abstract and §5; model scale] The paper repeatedly refers to the trained 1-layer 512-dim transformer as an 'LLM' and concludes that 'LLMs exhibit learning patterns similar to those of human learners' and 'may share cognitive processes.' This is a scope overreach. The experiments are on a from-scratch toy model with a few million parameters, not on a large language model. Either the claims should be explicitly restricted to small transformers, or experiments on actual pretrained LLMs are needed. In addition, Table 8 reports single-run accuracies with no error bars or repeated seeds; the large improvements are suggestive but several comparisons (e.g., 79.1 vs 80.2) lack uncertainty quantification.
  3. [Eq. (2)–(4)] The arithmetic formulas presented as task decompositions are not correct as literal equations. For addition, the standard recurrence is A_i = (D_i + D'_i + c_{i-1}) mod 10 with c_i = floor((D_i+D'_i+c_{i-1})/10). Equation (2) mixes floor and mod operations and does not reproduce the standard result; it appears to be an informal description of digit dependencies rather than a valid decomposition. The same issue applies to Eqs. (3) and (4). If these equations are intended only as mnemonic devices, this should be stated explicitly; as written, they are asserted decompositions that do not hold, further weakening the claim that the subtasks are the 'natural' components of arithmetic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4 vs §4.2.1] In the BM ablation, the text says 'ablating head 0 and head 1 has a minor impact on the loss of the BD task,' but the section is about the BM task; this is presumably a typo for 'BM.'
  2. [Table 8] The header contains 'Reserve' instead of 'Reverse.' Also, the table would benefit from error bars or multiple-seed ranges.
  3. [§4.2.1, algorithm reuse] The claim that models trained on 10-digit and 15-digit multiplication 'also use BM, UC and UCFC subtasks' is based only on visual inspection of attention maps (Fig. 7). No quantitative similarity measure or ablation on these larger models is provided.
  4. [§4.2.1, ablation details] The description of the ablation says 'For each head, we used an ablation intervention technique [21] that overrode its output with the mean value of the whole dataset,' but it does not specify how 'specific samples related to the target BM task' are selected. This selection is critical because it can reintroduce circularity.
  5. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided. Given the emphasis on interpretability and reproducibility, releasing code and seeds would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Subtask taxonomy is asserted and then read back out of loss curves and attention maps; the accuracy gains are independent and keep the circularity partial.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, 'Subtask Decomposition' and 'Learning Analysis' (Eq. (2), Fig. 4)]
    "Imitating the strategy humans adopt, we assert the transformer utilizes several basic subtasks to operate on digit pairs to complete the addition calculation. ... We then categorized the training data into 3 non-overlapping subsets aligned to the BA, UC, and UCFC tasks, and visualizes the loss curve of each subtask in Fig.4(b-d). As shown, BA and UC tasks show similar patterns, with the BA loss curve dropping more quickly because BA accuracy is needed before UC can be accurate."

    The subtask categories (BA, UC, UCFC) are defined from the same column-addition recursion used to generate the data (Eq. 2), and UC/UCFC are defined as depending on BA. Slicing the loss curves along these self-defined categories and reporting that BA drops before UC before UCFC restates the dependency structure of the definitions; it is not an independent test that the transformer implements these subtasks. A model using a different algorithm would still have its losses measured under labels that presuppose this decomposition, so the 'human-like learning order' is largely an artifact of the chosen labeling.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.1, 'Visualization Analysis' (Fig. 3(a))]
    "We chose the number of attention heads that yielded the clearest separation of tasks in the attention patterns. Fig. 3(a) shows that the model employs distinct attention heads for the BA and UC subtasks."

    The head count is selected to maximize the visible match to the already-asserted BA/UC/MC taxonomy, and the heads are then labeled BA/UC by visual inspection of the same attention maps. This is a projection of the taxonomy onto the model, not a falsifiable test: a model with a different internal factorization could be made to look aligned by choosing the number of heads that gives the 'clearest separation.' The visualization thus confirms the labels partly because it was chosen to do so.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2.1, 'Verification of learned subtasks by attention head' (Tables 4-6)]
    "For each head, we used an ablation intervention technique [21] that overrode its output with the mean value of the whole dataset and computed the average loss on specific samples related to the target BM task... ablating head 2 causes a significant loss increase. We hence conclude that head 2 is the key for the calculation of the BM task."

    The 'target BM task' samples are selected using the same task taxonomy that is under test. The ablation shows the head is important for that labeled subset, but it does not show the head computes the hypothesized BM function; the conclusion names the head by the label used to select the samples. This is a circular validation: the taxonomy defines the test set, and the test set is then cited as evidence for the taxonomy.

full rationale

The paper's central explanatory claim is that a vanilla transformer decomposes arithmetic into the hand-defined subtasks BA/MC/MS9/BM/BD/PDD/AD and learns them in human-like order. That claim is not self-contained: the subtask taxonomy is introduced by assertion ('we assert the transformer utilizes...'), and the supporting loss-curve and attention-head analyses reuse the same taxonomy. The loss curves are sliced according to subsets 'aligned to' the asserted subtasks, so the observed BA-before-UC-before-UCFC ordering is to a large extent a restatement of the dependency structure in Eq. (2). The attention-head validation is weakened by explicitly choosing the number of heads that yields the 'clearest separation of tasks' and by labeling heads via the same taxonomy. The ablation 'verification' selects samples named by the taxonomy and then concludes the ablated head is 'key' for that named task. These steps are not independent evidence; they project the taxonomy onto the model. However, the accuracy improvements from CoT, reversed answers, and depth (Table 8) are genuine empirical interventions whose success does not depend on the taxonomy being correct. There is no load-bearing self-citation (the cited [21] is an external source), and no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction. The circularity is therefore partial: the human-like-learning interpretation is not independently established, but the tuning results stand.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The ledger reflects that the paper's conceptual apparatus (subtask definitions, human-cognition analogy) is imposed by the authors rather than independently measured; the empirical improvements rest on standard hyperparameters and known techniques.

free parameters (1)
  • Model and training hyperparameters
    d_model=512, FF=2048, lr=1e-4, batch=64, 5000 iterations, 1–6 heads are hand-chosen, not fitted to data; they define the experimental setup but are not constants in a derivation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Arithmetic tasks can be decomposed into pairwise digit functions (Eq. 1) that the transformer actually learns.
    Introduced in Section 3.3 and used to define BA/MC/BM/BD subtasks; no evidence establishes that this decomposition matches the model's internal algorithm.
  • domain assumption Per-digit loss curves reveal the order and ease of subtask learning.
    Learning analysis in Sections 4.1–4.3 interprets visual loss-curve differences as evidence of learning order.
  • domain assumption Ablating an attention head by substituting its mean output isolates that head's causal role.
    Ablation intervention in Section 4.2.1; validity assumed without controls.
  • ad hoc to paper A single-layer 512-dim transformer trained from scratch is representative of Transformer-based LLMs.
    The title and abstract generalize from a small scratch-trained model to LLMs without any scaling or pretraining evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Qualitative similarity between model learning and human learning implies shared cognitive processes.
    Central interpretive leap in Abstract/Conclusion; no human behavioral data are collected or compared.
invented entities (1)
  • Subtask taxonomy (BA, MC, MS9, UC, UCFC, BM, CA, BD, PDD, AD) no independent evidence
    purpose: Conceptual units used to explain attention-head roles and learning order
    Defined by the authors and then detected in attention maps/loss curves; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13502 in / 12484 out tokens · 115801 ms · 2026-08-01T18:48:47.734312+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) continue to achieve state-of-the-art performance across various natural language processing tasks. However, their subpar performance on seemingly elementary problems, such as basic arithmetic, raises concerns about model reliability, safety, and ethical deployment. In this study, we demonstrate that the performance of a vanilla Transformer model trained on integer arithmetic tasks can be improved using methods effective for human learners. We begin by decomposing the arithmetic task into well-defined subtasks and conducting loss convergence order analysis together with ablation studies for each subtask. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit learning patterns similar to those of human learners, with a faster learning speed for simpler subtasks compared to more complex ones. In addition, we successfully improved the accuracy of LLMs by applying problem-solving strategies and cognitive empowerment methods shown to enhance the performance of human learners. This suggests that transformer-based LLMs may share cognitive processes with human learners in arithmetic. Lastly, we provide a comprehensive demonstration of our method's effectiveness, including significant accuracy improvement experiments, visualization verification, and explanation-based analysis to illuminate the intricacies of LLMs in arithmetic learning. In general, this work explores the potential similarities between transformer-based LLMs and human learners, supported by explainable AI (XAI) verifications, ultimately fostering trust in LLMs for critical and high-stakes applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17166 by Hwanhee Kim, Janet Hsiao, Jianing Li, Lei Chen, Luyu Qiu, Xiaoyong Wei, Yueyuan Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The decomposed steps of typical arithmetic tasks, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An example of input addition formula. Accurate calculation of answer digits requires complex calcula￾tions. Following subtask decomposition observed in human be￾havior and considering the characteristics of the self-attention mechanism, we model arithmetic tasks as a combination of simple operations acting on digit pairs, 𝑎𝑖 = ∑︁𝑛 𝑖=0 ∑︁𝑛 𝑗=0 𝑓𝑖𝑗 (𝐷𝑖 , 𝐷′ 𝑗 ). (1) This data movement between tokens aligns w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Attention maps of arithmetic task: (a) addition, (b) multiplication(ordinal input), (c) multiplication(reversed input), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrations of (a) the overall per-digit loss curve, and (b-e) per-digit loss curve for each subtask on addition task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrations of (a) the overall per-digit loss curve, and (b-e) per-digit loss curve for each subtask on multiplication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The attention map of reversed transformer with different attention heads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The attention map of transformer on 10-digit and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The overlap of per-digit products with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The attention map of transformer with CoT input, (a) ordinal transformer on multiplication task, (b) reversed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustrations of (a) the overall training loss curve and (b-d) per-digit loss curves for division task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vaswani, Ashish and Shazeer, Noam and Parmar, Niki and Uszkoreit, Jakob and Jones, Llion and Gomez, Aidan N and Kaiser, Łukasz and Polosukhin, Illia. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems. 30

    2017

  2. [2]

    Devlin, Jacob and Chang, Ming-Wei and Lee, Kenton and Toutanova, Kristina

  3. [3]

    Raffel, Colin and Shazeer, Noam and Roberts, Adam and Lee, Katherine and Narang, Sharan and Matena, Michael and Zhou, Yanqi and Li, Wei and Liu, Peter J. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research. 21(140): 1–67

    2020

  4. [4]

    Touvron, Hugo and Lavril, Thibaut and Izacard, Gautier and Martinet, Xavier and Lachaux, Marie-Anne and Lacroix, Timothée and Rozière, Baptiste and Goyal, Naman and Hambro, Eric and Azhar, Faisal and others. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Dziri, Nouha and Lu, Ximing and Sclar, Melanie and Li, Xiang Lorraine and Jiang, Liwei and Lin, Bill Yuchen and Welleck, Sean and West, Peter and Bhagavatula, Chandra and Le Bras, Ronan and others. 2024. Faith and fate: Limits of transform- ers on compositionality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 36

    2024

  6. [6]

    Achiam, Josh and Adler, Steven and Agarwal, Sandhini and Ahmad, Lama and Akkaya, Ilge and Aleman, Florencia Leoni and Almeida, Diogo and Altenschmidt, Janko and Altman, Sam and Anadkat, Shyamal and others. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Wang, Kevin and Variengien, Alexandre and Conmy, Arthur and Shlegeris, Buck and Steinhardt, Jacob. 2022. Interpretability in the wild: a circuit for indirect object identification in gpt-2 small. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00593

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Merullo, Jack and Eickhoff, Carsten and Pavlick, Ellie. 2023. Circuit com- ponent reuse across tasks in transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Vig, Jesse. 2019. A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Lee, Nayoung and Sreenivasan, Kartik and Lee, Jason D and Lee, Kangwook and Papailiopoulos, Dimitris. 2023. Teaching arithmetic to small transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03381

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Taylor, Ross and Kardas, Marcin and Cucurull, Guillem and Scialom, Thomas and Hartshorn, Anthony and Saravia, Elvis and Poulton, Andrew and Kerkez, Viktor and Stojnic, Robert. 2022. Galactica: A large language model for science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Thoppilan, Romal and De Freitas, Daniel and Hall, Jamie and Shazeer, Noam and Kulshreshtha, Apoorv and Cheng, Heng-Tze and Jin, Alicia and Bos, Taylor and Baker, Leslie and Du, Yu and others. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Chung, Hyung Won and Hou, Le and Longpre, Shayne and Zoph, Barret and Tay, Yi and Fedus, William and Li, Yunxuan and Wang, Xuezhi and Dehghani, Mostafa and Brahma, Siddhartha and others. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 25(70): 1–53

    2024

  14. [14]

    Radford, Alec and Kim, Jong Wook and Hallacy, Chris and Ramesh, Aditya and Goh, Gabriel and Agarwal, Sandhini and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Mishkin, Pamela and Clark, Jack and others. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. International conference on machine learning.: 8748–8763

    2021

  15. [15]

    Li, Junnan and Li, Dongxu and Savarese, Silvio and Hoi, Steven. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. International conference on machine learning.: 19730– 19742

    2023

  16. [16]

    Li, Yanwei and Zhang, Yuechen and Wang, Chengyao and Zhong, Zhisheng and Chen, Yixin and Chu, Ruihang and Liu, Shaoteng and Jia, Jiaya. 2024. Mini- gemini: Mining the potential of multi-modality vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18814

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Qian, Jing and Wang, Hong and Li, Zekun and Li, Shiyang and Yan, Xifeng. 2022. Limitations of language models in arithmetic and symbolic induction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Yang, Zhen and Ding, Ming and Lv, Qingsong and Jiang, Zhihuan and He, Zehai and Guo, Yuyi and Bai, Jinfeng and Tang, Jie. 2023. Gpt can solve mathematical problems without a calculator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Zhou, Bolei and Khosla, Aditya and Lapedriza, Agata and Oliva, Aude and Torralba, Antonio. 2016. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition.: 2921–2929

    2016

  20. [20]

    Selvaraju, Ramprasaath R and Cogswell, Michael and Das, Abhishek and Vedan- tam, Ramakrishna and Parikh, Devi and Batra, Dhruv. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision.: 618–626

    2017

  21. [21]

    Quirke, Philip and others. 2023. Understanding addition in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13121. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Shen, Ruoqi and Bubeck, Sébastien and Eldan, Ronen and Lee, Yin Tat and Li, Yuanzhi and Zhang, Yi. 2023. Positional description matters for transformers arithmetic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14737

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Lee, Frank J and Anderson, John R. 2001. Does learning a complex task have to be complex?: A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive psychology. 42(3): 267–316

    2001

  24. [24]

    Clements, Douglas H and Sarama, Julie. 2020. Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. Routledge

    2020

  25. [25]

    Arsalidou, Marie and Pawliw-Levac, Matthew and Sadeghi, Mahsa and Pascual- Leone, Juan. 2018. Brain areas associated with numbers and calculations in children: Meta-analyses of fMRI studies. Developmental cognitive neuroscience. 30: 239–250

    2018

  26. [26]

    Hiebert, James and Lefevre, Patricia. 2013. Conceptual and procedural knowl- edge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. Conceptual and procedural knowledge.: 1–27

    2013

  27. [27]

    Lockwood, Elise and DeJarnette, Anna F and Asay, Autumn and Thomas, Matthew. 2016. Algorithmic Thinking: An Initial Characterization of Computa- tional Thinking in Mathematics.. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education

    2016

  28. [28]

    Zhang, Yuxin and Tolmie, Andrew and Gordon, Rebecca. 2022. The relationship between working memory and arithmetic in primary school children: a meta- analysis. Brain sciences. 13(1): 22

    2022

  29. [29]

    and Foth, M

    Bornemann, B. and Foth, M. and Horn, J.. 2010. Mathematical cognition: in- dividual differences in resource allocation. ZDM Mathematics Education. 42: 555–567

    2010

  30. [30]

    Imani, Shima and Du, Liang and Shrivastava, Harsh. 2023. Mathprompter: Mathe- matical reasoning using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05398. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [2018]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv