Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

P-CoT: A Pedagogically-motivated Participatory Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Phonological Reasoning in LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a pedagogically structured teacher-student dialogue prompt, P-CoT, consistently improves phonological reasoning over baselines and few-shot prompting in all 12 LLMs tested, with gains up to 52% and some scores above…

desk verdict A useful prompt-design study whose central 'consistent improvement' claim is refuted by its own tables; worth a careful revise-and-resubmit rather than rejection or acceptance as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16656 v1 pith:XI2MA75G submitted 2025-07-22 cs.CL

Dongjun Jang , Youngchae Ahn , Hyopil Shin This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords P-CoTphonologicalreasoningchain-of-thoughtpromptingPhonologyBenchrhymewordgenerationgrapheme-to-phonemeconversionsyllablecountingguideddiscoverylearning
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 argues that text-only LLMs can do much better at phonological reasoning if the prompt is structured like a guided lesson rather than a simple list of examples. The authors introduce P-CoT, a chain-of-thought prompt that casts the model as a teacher or student in a scaffolded dialogue, providing definitions, sub-steps, and worked examples before the final question. In tests on PhonologyBench across 12 LLMs, P-CoT outperforms both zero-shot and few-shot prompting on rhyme word generation, grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, and syllable counting, with up to 52% improvement and scores above the human baseline on some tasks. The sympathetic reader cares because this suggests the phonological knowledge is already in the models; what they lack is an effective strategy to reach it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the P-CoT prompt itself: a multi-turn teacher-student script encoded in the system/user message format. It operationalizes scaffolding in the sense of Wood et al. (1976) by giving a conceptual definition, decomposing the problem into sub-tasks, and providing worked examples; it operationalizes discovery learning in the sense of Bruner (1961) by having the student role derive the rule from those examples. The final turn removes the scaffolding and asks for independent application (e.g., 'Now it's your turn'), which is what makes the chain-of-thought participatory rather than merely demonstrative.

What would settle it

Check every word and sentence used in the P-CoT prompt examples (Tables 7-12) against the PhonologyBench evaluation items; if any example appears as a test item with its answer stated in the prompt, re-run the evaluation after removing those items and see whether P-CoT's consistent improvement over baseline and few-shot persists. A sharper version: replace the example words with phonologically similar words that are not in the test set; if the gains vanish, the result is driven by example overlap rather than by the pedagogical prompt structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in Section 4.2.2, is that P-CoT prompts consistently improve performance over baseline across all examined models and tasks. The method works by embedding worked examples and targeted hints inside a teacher-student dialogue, so the model is led to decompose the task—find the ending sound before generating rhymes, count vowel sounds before totaling syllables—and then apply the rule independently when the scaffolding is removed. The same example words that produce only inconsistent few-shot gains become effective under this structure, which the authors take as evidence that the prompting strategy, not the data, drives the improvement. The measured gains reach up to 52 percentage points over baseline, and on several rhyme-generation tasks models exceed the reported human baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The P-CoT prompt embeds example words and sentences together with their correct answers; if any of those examples also appear as test items in PhonologyBench, the model could copy answers from the prompt, inflating P-CoT's apparent gains, and the paper does not check for such overlap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • P-CoT gives a stable prompting strategy for phonological tasks, replacing the model-dependent, sometimes negative effects of few-shot learning with consistent gains across all 12 models tested.
  • Because the same example sets underperform in few-shot prompting but succeed inside the teacher-student dialogue, the improved scores are attributed to the prompting structure itself rather than to additional task data.
  • On rhyme word generation, several open models (e.g., Mistral-7B, Ministral-8B) gain roughly 47-52 percentage points over baseline, and some models approach or exceed the reported human baseline.
  • On g2p conversion, P-CoT significantly outperforms the baseline for both high- and low-frequency words (Mann-Whitney U p-values in Table 6), although its advantage over few-shot reaches statistical significance only on high-frequency words.
  • The number of worked examples does not affect performance linearly; the paper notes that increasing interactions from one to five examples does not always improve results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A conservative reading is that the headline 52% figure is an upper bound on real reasoning gains: the authors never check whether prompt examples like 'information' or the sample syllable-counting sentences overlap with evaluation items, so some of the improvement could be answer leakage.
  • The pedagogical structure suggests a transferable recipe—define the sub-skill, scaffold with sub-steps, then remove support—that could be tested on other linguistic layers such as morphology or syntax.
  • The reported task-dependent optimal role (teacher for rhyme and syllable counting, student for g2p) implies that role assignment is itself a controllable prompt variable worth explicit tuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Pedagogically-motivated Participatory Chain-of-Thought (P-CoT) prompting method that embeds teacher-student discovery-learning dialogues for three phonological tasks from PhonologyBench: rhyme word generation, grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, and syllable counting. The authors evaluate 12 LLMs with zero-shot, few-shot, and three variants of P-CoT (P-CoT1/3/5), and report that P-CoT 'consistently improved performance over the baseline across all examined models and tasks,' with gains up to 52% and claims of surpassing human baselines. The appendices provide full prompt templates and state that the better of two teacher/student role assignments was selected per task. I assess whether the evidence supports the central claim.

Significance. If the central claim were established, P-CoT would be a practically useful prompting contribution that connects educational scaffolding theory to LLM phonological reasoning, and the paper's detailed prompt templates would facilitate replication. The paper has some strengths: it uses a standard benchmark, covers 12 models with both open and closed weights, sets a deterministic seed, and reports prompt-level details in the appendix. However, the main empirical claim is directly contradicted by the paper's own tables, and selective reporting plus an unaddressed example-overlap risk prevent the contribution from being evaluated as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2, Tables 4 and 5] The claim that P-CoT 'consistently improved performance over the baseline across all examined models and tasks' is contradicted by the paper's own results. In Table 4 (G2P conversion), Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct's baseline is 12.5/18.6, while P-CoT1, P-CoT3, and P-CoT5 give 10.0/17.4, 10.8/17.9, and 10.2/16.6, respectively; all variants are below baseline. In Table 5 (syllable counting), Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 drops from baseline 15.6 to 10.8 (P-CoT1) and 14.9 (P-CoT5), Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct drops from 12.9 to 10.7 (P-CoT5), and GPT-4o drops from 20.8 to 20.4 (P-CoT1) and 19.8 (P-CoT5). If 'consistent' means every P-CoT variant improves on every model-task cell, the paper's data disprove the claim. If the intended claim is that at least one variant improves per task, that selection rule is not stated in Section 4.2.2.
  2. [Appendix A, opening paragraph] The appendix states: 'we tested two scenarios: one where the model served as the teacher and another where it acted as the student. Here we present the scenario that achieved the best performance for each task.' This is selective reporting: for each task, the worse of two role assignments is omitted, and the reported numbers therefore reflect the best-performing configuration rather than a fixed method. Because the headline 'up to 52% improvement' and the abstract's 'surpassing human baselines' rely on these selected results, the paper needs to report both role configurations or justify the selection task-by-task with a pre-registered criterion.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Appendix Tables 7-12] The P-CoT prompts embed concrete example words and their gold answers, such as 'information,' 'transport,' 'apparently,' 'calorie,' 'freshman,' 'breeze,' and 'invite,' together with gold pronunciations, rhyme lists, and syllable counts. The paper does not check whether these example words or sentences appear in the PhonologyBench test items. If any appear, the model can copy the gold answer from the prompt, inflating P-CoT's apparent advantage over baselines. This is a concrete, testable concern: the authors should report an overlap analysis between every example in the prompt templates and the evaluation data, and exclude or re-analyze overlapping items.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states that P-CoT achieves gains 'even surpassing human baselines in certain tasks,' and Section 1 repeats that the method 'even surpasses the human baseline in the specific task.' No result in Tables 3-5 supports this: the only human baseline reported (Table 3) is 86.4/60.4, and no P-CoT cell exceeds it. For the other two tasks no human baseline is reported at all. This claim should either be substantiated with the relevant table or removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figure 3] The complexity score S = 0.4L + 0.3V + 0.3C is introduced without defining how L, V, and C are counted or normalized; the axis ranges such as '2.1-3.5' and '6.3-14.7' are therefore hard to interpret. Please specify the units and normalization, and note that the weights are used only for post-hoc analysis, not for the main comparison.
  2. [Appendix A, Section A.2 and Table 8] The phonemic transcription of 'apparently' is written inconsistently across the body text, Table 8, and Table 11 (e.g., 'Er' versus 'Eô', and inconsistent stress marks). Please standardize the IPA notation throughout.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] The text refers to 'GPT-4' when Tables 3-5 list 'gpt-4o'; please use the model name consistently.
  4. [Appendix Tables 10 and 12] There is a typo '5different' in the final-request prompt of Tables 10 and 12; it should read '5 different'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the P-CoT results are empirical measurements against an external benchmark, with no fitted quantity or self-citation chain that defines the reported improvements.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical prompting study, not a derivation. The central claim that P-CoT improves phonological reasoning is supported by accuracy measurements on the externally maintained PhonologyBench tasks, and the reported tables constitute falsifiable evidence. The prompt examples (e.g., 'information', 'apparently', 'transport') are fixed instructional scaffolding rather than parameters fitted to the evaluation data, so no reported score is forced by construction. The ad hoc complexity score S = 0.4L + 0.3V + 0.3C is used only in post-hoc analysis of g2p results and does not define or generate the headline improvements. Appendix A's statement that only the better-performing teacher/student role is reported for each task is a configuration-selection issue that risks optimistic reporting, but selecting the best of several tested prompt variants does not make the results true by definition. The paper's own tables also contain cells where P-CoT falls below baseline (e.g., Qwen2.5-7B on g2p, and several models on syllable counting), so the 'consistently improved' claim is contradicted by the reported evidence; however, an internally inconsistent or overbroad empirical claim is a correctness and reporting concern, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citations were found, and no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or prior result by the same authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. Any possible overlap between prompt example words and test items would be data contamination, but the paper provides no evidence of such overlap, and the concern is not a circular reduction of a prediction to its input. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the prompt design and benchmark validity. The main free parameters are the ad hoc complexity weights and the per-task role selection, which is chosen based on performance.

free parameters (2)
  • Complexity score weights (0.4L + 0.3V + 0.3C) = 0.4, 0.3, 0.3
    Ad hoc weights used in Section 5.2 to bin g2p words by complexity; not justified and only used for analysis.
  • Teacher/student role selection = Best of two roles per task (teacher for syllable/rhyme, student for g2p)
    Appendix A reports both roles were tested and the better one is presented, effectively fitting the prompt role to the results.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PhonologyBench ground-truth labels and metrics (Exact Match, Success Rate) are correct and appropriate.
    The paper adopts PhonologyBench without auditing its labels or metric choices.
  • domain assumption The examples in the P-CoT prompts are disjoint from the evaluation items in PhonologyBench.
    If example words overlap with the test set, gold answers in the prompt leak into the evaluation.
  • domain assumption A fixed seed yields deterministic outputs that are representative of each model's behavior.
    Single-run results are reported without error bars; variance is not assessed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of P-CoT: A Pedagogically-motivated Participatory Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Phonological Reasoning in LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XI2MA75G

@misc{pith2026250716656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: P-CoT: A Pedagogically-motivated Participatory Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Phonological Reasoning in LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XI2MA75G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16656}
}
read the original abstract

This study explores the potential of phonological reasoning within text-based large language models (LLMs). Utilizing the PhonologyBench benchmark, we assess tasks like rhyme word generation, g2p conversion, and syllable counting. Our evaluations across 12 LLMs reveal that while few-shot learning offers inconsistent gains, the introduction of a novel Pedagogically-motivated Participatory Chain-of-Thought (P-CoT) prompt, which is anchored in educational theories like scaffolding and discovery learning, consistently enhances performance. This method leverages structured guidance to activate latent phonological abilities, achieving up to 52% improvement and even surpassing human baselines in certain tasks. Future work could aim to optimize P-CoT prompts for specific models or explore their application across different linguistic domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. P-CoT Prompting Method alone and what they can accomplish with guidance. In our approach, scaffolding is used to help the model traverse this zone, offering temporary sup￾port that enables it to engage with phonological tasks beyond its current level of competence. This integration of discovery learning and scaf￾folding has been shown to be effective in educa￾tional contexts. For instance, Ewing McMahon (2000) and C… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Success Rate Improvement of Rhyme Word Generation Analysis In our exploration of enhancing phonological reasoning within text-based LLMs through the P￾CoT methodology, our results underscore the sig￾nificant potential of educationally-inspired frame￾works to enhance model performance across all three evaluated phonological tasks: rhyme word generation, g2p conversion, and syllable counting. 5.1 Rhyme Word Generation… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accuracy by Word Complexity of G2P Con￾version (Red: Baseline, Blue: Few-shot, Green: P-CoT) passes few-shot techniques for high-frequency words (p = 1.84 × 10−2 ), though the improvement for low-frequency words is not significant (p = 2.37 × 10−1 ). These results highlight P-CoT as an exceptionally effective approach for advancing g2p conversion task performance, effectively adapting to varying word complexities an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Syllable Counting Error Analysis over Baseline (Gray: Baseline, Orange/Teal: Few-shot, Lime/Cyan/Magenta: P-CoT variants) Conversely, Figure 4b shows the distributions un￾der P-CoT configurations. Notably, P-CoT prompts lead to a dramatic improvement in reducing in￾sta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: P-CoT5 Prompting Flow for Syllable Counting Task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mistral AI. 2024. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410 Ministral-8b-instruct-2410

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Louis Alfieri, Patricia J Brooks, Naomi J Aldrich, and Harriet R Tenenbaum. 2011. Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of educational psychology, 103(1):1

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Yuvanesh Anand, Zach Nussbaum, Brandon Duderstadt, Benjamin Schmidt, and Andriy Mulyar. 2023. Gpt4all: Training an assistant-style chatbot with large scale data distillation from gpt-3.5-turbo. https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all

    2023

  4. [4]

    WS Anthony. 1973. Learning to discover rules by discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(3):325

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    Anthropic. 2024 a . https://www.anthropic.com/claude/haiku Claude 3.5 haiku

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    AI Anthropic. 2024 b . Claude 3.5 sonnet model card addendum. Claude-3.5 Model Card, 3(6)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Nathan Atox and Mason Clark. 2024. Evaluating large language models through the lens of linguistic proficiency and world knowledge: A comparative study. Authorea Preprints

    2024

  8. [8]

    Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12449--12460

    2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    AL Brown. 1994. Guided discovery in a community of learners. Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice/press/Bradford Books

    1994

  2. [10]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877--1901

    2020

  3. [11]

    Jerome Bruner. 1985. Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 21:34

    1985

  4. [12]

    Jerome S Bruner. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard educational review

    1961

  5. [13]

    Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 Sparks of artificial general...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Courtney B. Cazden. 1979. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140433108 Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. papers and reports on child language development, no. 17

    1979

  7. [15]

    Edward Y. Chang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08769 Prompting large language models with the socratic method . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08769

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jiangjie Chen, Xintao Wang, Rui Xu, Siyu Yuan, Yikai Zhang, Wei Shi, Jian Xie, Shuang Li, Ruihan Yang, Tinghui Zhu, et al. 2024. From persona to personalization: A survey on role-playing language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18231

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum. 1991. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:263308120 Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible . American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 15

    1991

  11. [19]

    Tri Dao. 2023. Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, et al. 2022. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Thierry Dutoit. 1997. High-quality text-to-speech synthesis: An overview. Journal Of Electrical And Electronics Engineering Australia, 17(1):25--36

    1997

  15. [23]

    Bronwyn F Ewing McMahon. 2000. Scaffolding: A suitable teaching characteristic in one-to-one teaching in maths recovery. In Mathematics Education Beyond 2000. Twenty Third Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research group of Australasia Incorporated. 5-9 July, Frem...

    2000

  16. [24]

    Elias Frantar, Saleh Ashkboos, Torsten Hoefler, and Dan Alistarh. 2022. Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pamela Thibodeau Hardiman, Alexander Pollatsek, and Arnold D Well. 1986. Learning to understand the balance beam. Cognition and Instruction, 3(1):63--86

    1986

  19. [27]

    Yuchen Hu, Chen Chen, Chao-Han Huck Yang, Ruizhe Li, Dong Zhang, Zhehuai Chen, and Eng Siong Chng. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06894 Gentranslate: Large language models are generative multilingual speech and machine translators . Preprint, arXiv:2402.06894

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mohamad Gilar Jatisunda, Vici Suciawati, and Dede Salim Nahdi. 2020. Discovery learning with scaffolding to promote mathematical creative thinking ability and self-efficacy. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(2):351--370

    2020

  21. [29]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. 2023. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zhuoxuan Jiang, Haoyuan Peng, Shanshan Feng, Fan Li, and Dongsheng Li. 2024. Llms can find mathematical reasoning mistakes by pedagogical chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06705

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Paul Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E Clark. 2006. Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2):75--86

    2006

  24. [32]

    Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. 2022. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zechun Liu, Barlas Oguz, Changsheng Zhao, Ernie Chang, Pierre Stock, Yashar Mehdad, Yangyang Shi, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, and Vikas Chandra. 2023. Llm-qat: Data-free quantization aware training for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17888

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tyler Loakman, Chen Tang, and Chenghua Lin. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03457 Twistlist: Resources and baselines for tongue twister generation . Preprint, arXiv:2306.03457

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Roxana Moreno. 2004. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional science, 32(1):99--113

    2004

  28. [36]

    Nadim Nachar et al. 2008. The mann-whitney u: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1):13--20

    2008

  29. [37]

    OpenAI. 2022. https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/ Gpt-3.5 turbo

    2022

  30. [38]

    R OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arxiv 2303.08774. View in Article, 2(5)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mahta Fetrat Qharabagh, Zahra Dehghanian, and Hamid R. Rabiee. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08554 Llm-powered grapheme-to-phoneme conversion: Benchmark and case study . Preprint, arXiv:2409.08554

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2023. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 28492--28518. PMLR

    2023

  33. [41]

    Paul K Rubenstein, Chulayuth Asawaroengchai, Duc Dung Nguyen, Ankur Bapna, Zal \'a n Borsos, F \'e lix de Chaumont Quitry, Peter Chen, Dalia El Badawy, Wei Han, Eugene Kharitonov, et al. 2023. Audiopalm: A large language model that can speak and listen. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12925

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alexandra Schofield, Richard Wicentowski, and Julie Medero. 2021. Learning how to learn nlp: Developing introductory concepts through scaffolded discovery. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Teaching NLP, pages 131--137

    2021

  35. [43]

    Murray Shanahan. 2022. Talking about large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03551

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ashima Suvarna, Harshita Khandelwal, and Nanyun Peng. 2024. Phonologybench: Evaluating phonological skills of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02456

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivi \`e re, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. 2024. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Lisa Miracchi Titus. 2024. Does chatgpt have semantic understanding? a problem with the statistics-of-occurrence strategy. Cognitive Systems Research, 83:101174

    2024

  40. [48]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Yu-Min Tseng, Yu-Chao Huang, Teng-Yun Hsiao, Yu-Ching Hsu, Jia-Yin Foo, Chao-Wei Huang, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2024. Two tales of persona in llms: A survey of role-playing and personalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01171

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Juhani E Tuovinen and John Sweller. 1999. A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of educational psychology, 91(2):334

    1999

  43. [51]

    Wouter R Van Joolingen, Ton de Jong, Ard W Lazonder, Elwin R Savelsbergh, and Sarah Manlove. 2005. Co-lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in human behavior, 21(4):671--688

    2005

  44. [52]

    Lev S Vygotsky. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, volume 86. Harvard university press

    1978

  45. [53]

    Zhenhailong Wang, Shaoguang Mao, Wenshan Wu, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Heng Ji. 2023. Unleashing the emergent cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self-collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05300

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  47. [55]

    David Wood, Jerome S Bruner, and Gail Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2):89--100

    1976

  48. [56]

    Lanqing Xue, Kaitao Song, Duocai Wu, Xu Tan, Nevin L Zhang, Tao Qin, Wei-Qiang Zhang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. Deeprapper: Neural rap generation with rhyme and rhythm modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.01875

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, et al. 2024. Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Tengfei Yu, Xuebo Liu, Zhiyi Hou, Liang Ding, Dacheng Tao, and Min Zhang. 2024. Self-powered llm modality expansion for large speech-text models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 12401--12417

    2024

  51. [59]

    Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Xin Zhang, Jun Zhan, Pengyu Wang, Yaqian Zhou, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023 a . Speechgpt: Empowering large language models with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11000

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ya-Jie Zhang, Chao Zhang, Wei Song, Zhengchen Zhang, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2023 b . Prosody modelling with pre-trained cross-utterance representations for improved speech synthesis. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 31:2812--2823

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.