Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Question-Analysis Prompting Improves LLM Performance in Reasoning Tasks

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 2407.03624 v2 pith:RW2PZMXH submitted 2024-07-04 cs.CL

Question-Analysis Prompting Improves LLM Performance in Reasoning Tasks

classification cs.CL
keywords promptingquestionmodelperformancepromptsaquadatasetslength
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Although LLMs have the potential to transform many fields, they still underperform humans in reasoning tasks. Existing methods induce the model to produce step-by-step calculations, but this research explores the question: Does making the LLM analyze the question improve its performance? We propose a novel prompting strategy called Question Analysis Prompting (QAP), in which the model is prompted to explain the question in $n$ words before solving. The value of $n$ influences the length of response generated by the model. QAP is evaluated on GPT 3.5 Turbo and GPT 4 Turbo on arithmetic datasets GSM8K, AQuA, and SAT and commonsense dataset StrategyQA. QAP is compared with other state-of-the-art prompts including Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Plan and Solve Prompting (PS+) and Take A Deep Breath (TADB). QAP outperforms all state-of-the-art prompts on AQuA and SAT datasets on both GPT3.5 and GPT4. QAP consistently ranks among the top-2 prompts on 75\% of the tests. A key factor of QAP performance can be attributed to response length, where detailed responses are beneficial when answering harder questions, but can negatively affect easy questions.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Investigating Symbolic Triggers of Hallucination in Gemma Models Across HaluEval and TruthfulQA

    cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0

    Symbolic triggers like modifiers and named entities keep Gemma hallucination rates at 64-79% across model scales, suggesting larger models do not eliminate this failure mode.

  2. From Test-taking to Cognitive Scaffolding: A Pedagogical Diagnostic Benchmark for LLMs on English Standardized Tests

    cs.CL 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The paper presents ESTBook, a multimodal benchmark of 10,576 English standardized test questions augmented with formalized cognitive reasoning trajectories and distractor rationales to support diagnostic evaluation of...