Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

BELL: Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BELL proposes a single score—the average of coherence, uncertainty, and cosine similarity against OpenOrca reference answers—as a standardized measure of LLM explainability.

desk verdict A practical white paper on benchmarking LLM explainability, but the core scoring formula is underspecified and the numbers don't compute as written; the open-source code is the only path to salvage. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18572 v1 pith:TXRVWMIG submitted 2025-04-22 cs.AI cs.CL

Syed Quiser Ahmed , Bharathi Vokkaliga Ganesh , Jagadish Babu P , Karthick Selvaraj , ReddySiva Naga Parvathi Devi , Sravya Kappala This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords ExplainabilityInterpretabilityBenchmarkingChain-of-ThoughtThread-of-ThoughtThoughtelicitationOpenOrcaModeltransparency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces BELL, a benchmark that assigns a single explainability score to a large language model by averaging three quality metrics over a set of responses. The score combines coherence, measured self-uncertainty, and cosine similarity between the model's explanation and a reference answer from the OpenOrca dataset. The authors argue that this composite score lets researchers and practitioners compare models, as well as thought-eliciting techniques such as Chain-of-Thought, Thread-of-Thought, ReRead, and Chain-of-Verification, on how transparent their reasoning is. The contribution is the packaging of several known prompting strategies and similarity metrics into one reproducible scoring recipe.

What carries the argument

The central object is the overall score formula: $$\text{OverallScore} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{\text{Coherence}(E_i) + \text{Uncertainty}(E_i) + \text{CosSim}(E_i, B_i)}{3}$$ with the OpenOrca response $B_i$ serving as the reference explanation. Coherence and uncertainty are computed for each generated explanation; cosine similarity is computed in the model's embedding space; a separate hallucination score is subtracted to form the model score. The benchmark's load-bearing move is using this single average as the operational definition of explainability.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of explanations whose quality is independently judged by human experts, compute BELL scores on the same set, and check whether the rankings agree. If a model judged clearer scores lower on BELL, the benchmark is not measuring explainability as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that explainability can be quantified as an average of three measurable components, computed per response and then across the dataset: coherence of the generated explanation, uncertainty of the model about that explanation, and cosine similarity between the explanation's embedding and the embedding of a reference answer. The overall score is presented as a standardized benchmarking technique, with hallucination subtracted separately to produce a final model score. On the math subset of OpenOrca, the authors report that larger models such as GPT-4 outscore smaller models, and that Thread-of-Thought and ReRead variants generally yield higher scores than plain Chain-of-Thought.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark assumes that OpenOrca's GPT-written reference answers are the correct gold standard for explanation quality, and that cosine similarity to those answers measures explainability; if either fails, the score measures something other than explainability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If BELL is accepted, model selection for high-stakes tasks can be partly driven by a single explainability number rather than qualitative inspection.
  • The benchmark provides a common yardstick for comparing thought-eliciting techniques, so a technique's benefit can be measured by its effect on the composite score.
  • Releasing the implementation lets other teams reproduce the scores and extend the metric set.
  • The math-focused evaluation on OpenOrca gives an initial ranking that suggests larger models produce more transparent explanations on this subset.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to compare BELL scores against human expert ratings on the same explanations; if the ranking diverges, the cosine-similarity component would need reweighting or replacement.
  • The formula implicitly assumes the OpenOrca reference answer is the canonical explanation; in domains where many equally good explanations exist, embedding similarity could penalize valid alternatives.
  • Because the same embedding space is used for similarity and for measuring uncertainty, BELL may partly reward stylistic conformity to GPT-generated phrasing rather than reasoning quality.
  • The framework could be extended to non-mathematical domains by swapping the reference dataset, but the reference dependency would remain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes BELL (Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models), a framework for evaluating LLM explainability using thought-eliciting techniques (CoT, ThoT, ReRead, CoVe, and Hallucination) on the OpenOrca dataset. The proposed score averages coherence, uncertainty, and cosine similarity to an OpenOrca reference response; a hallucination score is then subtracted from this average to produce a final model score. Results are reported for seven models in tabular and bar-chart form, and the authors claim that BELL is a standardized benchmark and that larger models such as GPT-4 outperform smaller ones. The paper also points to an open-source repository as the implementation of the techniques and metrics.

Significance. If fully specified and validated, a reproducible benchmark for LLM explanation quality would be a valuable contribution to the interpretability and safety literature. The paper has useful starting points: it addresses a real need, covers several thought-eliciting techniques, provides a comparative table of seven models, and releases an implementation. However, as written, BELL is not yet a standardized benchmarking technique because core components of the scoring formula are undefined and the reported results cannot be reproduced from the manuscript. The missing metric definitions and lack of validation are load-bearing issues that substantially reduce the current significance of the work.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.7 and §5 (OverallScore formula)] The central scoring formula is not computable from the manuscript. Section 4.7 gives a formal definition only for Cosine Similarity (Eq. 1); the entries for Coherence and Uncertainty are qualitative prose ("logically consistent and contextually aligned" and "how confident the model is") with no scoring function, scale, or measurement procedure. The Hallucination Score formula, Hallucination Score = 1 - (0.8 * Average of Evaluation Metrics) - (0.2 * Average Similarity Score), is also undefined because "Average of Evaluation Metrics" and "Average Similarity Score" are never specified. Since Section 5's OverallScore includes Coherence(E_i) and Uncertainty(E_i), the benchmark cannot be implemented, reproduced, or independently checked from the submitted text. This directly contradicts the paper's claim of introducing a "standardized benchmarking technique."
  2. [§5 (Model_Score formula, Table 1)] The Model_Score formula is under-specified and appears numerically inconsistent. Model_Score = Avg(OverallScore) - Hallucination(E_i) mixes a model-level average with a per-response hallucination term, and the table's Model Score values cannot be derived from the preceding columns: for GPT-4 the average of the five technique scores (85.28, 92.39, 91.91, 91.37, 85.14) is approximately 89.2, and subtracting the reported hallucination value 19.42 does not yield the reported model score 87.78. Moreover, since the Hallucination Score is itself defined as a linear combination of evaluation metrics and cosine similarity, and the OverallScore is an average of coherence, uncertainty, and cosine similarity, the final ranking is a reweighting of the same input measurements rather than an independent assessment of hallucination. The paper needs to specify exactly what enters each average and provide a derivation that reproduces Table 1.
  3. [§4.6, §4.7 (cosine similarity to OpenOrca baseline)] The choice of OpenOrca GPT-4/GPT-3.5 completions as the baseline B_i is not justified. Cosine similarity between the generated explanation and this reference is used as a component of the explainability score, but no evidence is provided that these references are gold-standard explanations or that embedding similarity is a valid proxy for transparency. Without such evidence, the benchmark measures closeness to a particular reference corpus, not explainability as claimed. The authors should validate the metric against human judgments or established interpretability benchmarks.
  4. [§5, Table/Graph 1-7] The reported experiments lack essential details for the comparative claims. No sample size (number of OpenOrca math questions), model versions (e.g., exact GPT-4 API version), inference parameters (temperature, max tokens, seed), embedding model, or G-Eval configuration are given, and the bar charts show no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Consequently the conclusion that "GPT-4 consistently outperformed others" is unsupported by the reported evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The section numbering jumps from "4 Experimental Setup" to "4.6 Dataset", with no Subsections 4.1-4.5; the numbering should be corrected so that the metrics subsection is consistently referenced.
  2. [Throughout] There are inconsistencies in capitalization and terminology: "ReRead Thot" appears alongside "ReRead ThoT", and "Thread-of-Thought" appears alongside "Thread of Thought"; the figures labelled "Graph 1-7" are bar charts and should be labelled as figures with axis labels and units.
  3. [Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 5] Sections 3.5 and 3.6 describe GoT and LoT, and the introduction lists them among the evaluated techniques, but Section 5 reports results only for CoT, ThoT, ReRead variants, CoVe, and Hallucination; the authors should either include results for GoT and LoT or revise the claimed contributions accordingly.
  4. [References] Reference [37] is cited for the OpenOrca dataset, but the entry is for the Orca paper; the dataset itself should be cited with its version and URL, and several other reference entries (e.g., [4], [19]) are incomplete.
  5. [Fig. 1 and Section 4.7] The term "Hallucination" is used both as a thought-eliciting technique in Fig. 1 and as a metric in Section 4.7; hallucination is a failure mode, not a reasoning technique, and this conflation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Hallucination metric is defined from the same coherence/uncertainty/cosine-similarity terms that compose OverallScore, so the hallucination-adjusted Model_Score is just a reweighting of the same inputs.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.7 (Hallucination) and Section 5 (Model_Score)]
    "Hallucination Score = 1 - (0.8 * Average of Evaluation Metrics) - (0.2 * Average Similarity Score) ... {Model_Score} = Avg ({OverallScore}) - ({Hallucination}(E_i)) ... {OverallScore} = frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \frac{{Coherence}(E_i) + {Uncertainty}(E_i) + {CosSim}(E_i, B_i)}{3} \right)"

    The only non-hallucination metrics defined in Section 4.7 are Coherence, Uncertainty, and Cosine Similarity, so 'Average of Evaluation Metrics' and 'Average Similarity Score' in the Hallucination formula refer to these same three quantities. Hallucination is therefore a linear combination of exactly the terms that define OverallScore. Subtracting Hallucination from Avg(OverallScore) in the Model_Score formula yields a fixed linear reweighting of Coherence, Uncertainty, and Cosine Similarity (e.g., if Evaluation Metrics is the average of Coherence and Uncertainty, Model_Score reduces to roughly 0.73*Coherence + 0.73*Uncertainty + 0.53*CosSim - 1).

full rationale

The central benchmark proposal is otherwise a self-contained definitional framework: the thought-eliciting techniques are cited from external prior work, no load-bearing self-citation chain appears, and the empirical finding that larger models score higher is not directly encoded in the metric definitions. The one genuine by-construction redundancy is the hallucination score, which is defined as a linear function of the same coherence/uncertainty/cosine-similarity terms that form OverallScore, and then subtracted in Model_Score. This makes the final 'hallucination-adjusted' explainability ranking equivalent to a reweighting of the same three input measurements, rather than an independent evaluation. Separately, the manuscript leaves Coherence and Uncertainty without explicit scoring formulas, so the OverallScore is not yet reproducible from the text alone; that is a completeness/correctness issue rather than a circularity issue, but it compounds the difficulty of treating the reported Model_Score numbers as validated outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central score rests on assumptions about the validity of the reference dataset and the metrics, none of which are validated.

free parameters (1)
  • hallucination formula weights = 0.8 and 0.2
    The hallucination score is defined as 1 - 0.8*(average eval metrics) - 0.2*(average similarity), with no justification for these weights. They affect every model score.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption OpenOrca reference responses are ground-truth explanations
    Cosine similarity to these references is treated as evidence of explanation quality in Section 4.7.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity in embedding space captures explanation quality
    No validation is provided that embedding similarity corresponds to human judgments of explainability.
  • domain assumption Coherence and uncertainty metrics are valid and computable
    No formal definitions or implementations are given for these metrics in Section 4.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BELL: Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXRVWMIG

@misc{pith2026250418572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BELL: Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXRVWMIG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18572}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language processing, yet their decision-making processes often lack transparency. This opaqueness raises significant concerns regarding trust, bias, and model performance. To address these issues, understanding and evaluating the interpretability of LLMs is crucial. This paper introduces a standardised benchmarking technique, Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models, designed to evaluate the explainability of large language models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18572 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed architecture 3.1 Chain of Thought (CoT): Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning, introduced by Wei et al. [31], is a process where each step logically follows the previous one, forming a structured path to a solution. This method helps LLMs tackle complex problems by breaking them down into smaller steps, similar to how humans connect ideas in a step-by-step manner. For example, when solving a math problem, the m… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Natural language processing: State of the art, current trends and challenges

    Diksha Khurana, Aditya Koli, Kiran Khatter, and Sukhdev Singh. Natural language processing: State of the art, current trends and challenges. Multimedia tools and applications, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis, 2023

    Wenhao Zhu, Hongyi Liu, Qingxiu Dong, Jingjing Xu, Shujian Huang, Lingpeng Kong, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Wordcraft: story writing with large language models

    Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. Wordcraft: story writing with large language models. In Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 841–852, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    https://medium.com/whatnot - engineering/enhancing-search-using-large-language-models-f9dcb988bdb9

    Enhancing search using large language models, 2023. https://medium.com/whatnot - engineering/enhancing-search-using-large-language-models-f9dcb988bdb9

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Code llama: Open foundation models for code

    Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, et al. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance, 2023

    Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    The impact of large language models on scientific discovery: a preliminary study using gpt-4, 2023

    Microsoft Research AI4Science and Microsoft Azure Quantum. The impact of large language models on scientific discovery: a preliminary study using gpt-4, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Pllama: An open -source large language model for plant science, 2024

    Xianjun Yang, Junfeng Gao, Wenxin Xue, and Erik Alexandersson. Pllama: An open -source large language model for plant science, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Artgpt-4: Artistic vision-language understanding with adapter-enhanced minigpt-4, 2023

    Zhengqing Yuan, Huiwen Xue, Xinyi Wang, Yongming Liu, Zhuanzhe Zhao, and Kun Wang. Artgpt-4: Artistic vision-language understanding with adapter-enhanced minigpt-4, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Taoli llama

    Jingsi Yu, Junhui Zhu, Yujie Wang, Yang Liu, Hongxiang Chang, Jinran Nie, Cunliang Kong, Ruining Chong, XinLiu, Jiyuan An, Luming Lu, Mingwei Fang, and Lin Zhu. Taoli llama. https://github.com/blcuicall/taoli, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Marinegpt: Unlocking secrets of “ocean” to the public, 2023

    Ziqiang Zheng, Jipeng Zhang, Tuan -Anh Vu, Shizhe Diao, Yue Him Wong Tim, and Sai -Kit Yeung. Marinegpt: Unlocking secrets of “ocean” to the public, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Disc-lawllm: Fine-tuning large language models for intelligent legal services, 2023

    Shengbin Yue, Wei Chen, Siyuan Wang, Bingxuan Li, Chenchen Shen, Shujun Liu, Yuxuan Zhou, Yao Xiao, Song Yun, Xuanjing Huang, and Zhongyu Wei. Disc-lawllm: Fine-tuning large language models for intelligent legal services, 2023. Infosys Responsible AI Office

    2023

  5. [13]

    Large language models and political science

    Mitchell Linegar, Rafal Kocielnik, and R Michael Alvarez. Large language models and political science. Frontiers in Political Science, 5:1257092, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Alpacare:instruction-tuned large language models for medical application, 2023

    Xinlu Zhang, Chenxin Tian, Xianjun Yang, Lichang Chen, Zekun Li, and Linda Ruth Petzold. Alpacare:instruction-tuned large language models for medical application, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Davison, Quanzheng Li, Yong Chen, Hongfang Liu, and Lichao Sun

    Kai Zhang, Jun Yu, Zhiling Yan, Yixin Liu, Eashan Adhikarla, Sunyang Fu, Xun Chen, Chen Chen, Y uyin Zhou, Xiang Li, Lifang He, Brian D. Davison, Quanzheng Li, Yong Chen, Hongfang Liu, and Lichao Sun. Biomedgpt: A unified and generalist biomedical generative pre- trained trans...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Factuality challenges in the era of large language models, 2023

    Isabelle Augenstein, Timothy Baldwin, Meeyoung Cha, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, David Corney, Renee DiResta, Emilio Ferrara, Scott Hale, Alon Halevy, et al. Factuality challenges in the era of large language models, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Unraveling the link between translations and gender bias in llms, 2023

    Appen. Unraveling the link between translations and gender bias in llms, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02483, 2023

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02483, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Granite Foundation Models, 2024: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/documents/us- en/10a99803c92fdb35

    2024

  12. [20]

    LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie -Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Languag...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations

    Jaehun Jung, Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Faeze Brahman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Soft-prompt Tuning for Large Language Models to Evaluate Bias

    Jacob-Junqi Tian, David Emerson, Sevil Zanjani Miyandoab, Deval Pandya, Laleh SeyyedKalantari, and Faiza Khan Khattak. Soft-prompt Tuning for Large Language Models to Evaluate Bias. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2306.04735, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain -of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In NeurIPS

    2022

  17. [25]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Y u, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023a. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. CoRR, abs/2305.10601

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Michal Podstawski, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, and Torsten Hoefler. 2023. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. CoRR, abs/2308.09687

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Yao Yao, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. 2023b. Beyond chain -of-thought, effective graph -of- thought reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2305.16582

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Le, and Ed H

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc V . Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2023. Least -to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Self -consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in Infosys Responsible AI Office language models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self -consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in Infosys Responsible AI Office language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Repres...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:15476–15488, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Chi, E.H., Xia, F., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. ArXiv, abs/2201.11903

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhou, Y ., Geng, X., Shen, T., Tao, C., Long, G., Lou, J., & Shen, J. (2023). Thread of Thought Unraveling Chaotic Contexts. ArXiv, abs/2311.08734

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Besta, Maciej & Blach, Nils & Kubicek, Ales & Gerstenberger, Robert & Podstawski, Michal & Gianinazzi, Lukas & Gajda, Joanna & Lehmann, Tomasz & Niewiadomski, Hubert & Nyczyk, Piotr & Hoefler, Torsten. (2024). Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language M...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Tongxuan, Liu & Xu, Wenjiang & Huang, Weizhe & Wang, Xingyu & Wang, Jiaxing & Yang, Hailong & Li, Jing. (2024). Logic-of-Thought: Injecting Logic into Contexts for Full Reasoning in Large Language Models. 10.48550/arXiv.2409.17539

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Xu, X., Tao, C., Shen, T., Xu, C., Xu, H., Long, G., & Lou, J. (2023). Re -Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2023

  28. [36]

    Dhuliawala, Shehzaad & Komeili, Mojtaba & Xu, Jing & Raileanu, Roberta & Li, Xian & Asli, Celikyilmaz & Weston, Jason. (2024). Chain -of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models. 3563-3578. 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.212

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Orca: Progressive Learning from Complex Explanation Traces of GPT-4

    Mukherjee, Subhabrata, Arindam Mitra, Ganesh Jawahar, Sahaj Agarwal, Hamid Palangi and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. “Orca: Progressive Learning from Complex Explanation Traces of GPT-4.”

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.