Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

When do you need Chain-of-Thought Prompting for ChatGPT?

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 2304.03262 v2 pith:VBFQQXGD submitted 2023-04-06 cs.AI

When do you need Chain-of-Thought Prompting for ChatGPT?

classification cs.AI
keywords chatgptinstructiontasksreasoningdataseteffectivellmschain-of-thought
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can effectively elicit complex multi-step reasoning from Large Language Models~(LLMs). For example, by simply adding CoT instruction ``Let's think step-by-step'' to each input query of MultiArith dataset, GPT-3's accuracy can be improved from 17.7\% to 78.7\%. However, it is not clear whether CoT is still effective on more recent instruction finetuned (IFT) LLMs such as ChatGPT. Surprisingly, on ChatGPT, CoT is no longer effective for certain tasks such as arithmetic reasoning while still keeping effective on other reasoning tasks. Moreover, on the former tasks, ChatGPT usually achieves the best performance and can generate CoT even without being instructed to do so. Hence, it is plausible that ChatGPT has already been trained on these tasks with CoT and thus memorized the instruction so it implicitly follows such an instruction when applied to the same queries, even without CoT. Our analysis reflects a potential risk of overfitting/bias toward instructions introduced in IFT, which becomes more common in training LLMs. In addition, it indicates possible leakage of the pretraining recipe, e.g., one can verify whether a dataset and instruction were used in training ChatGPT. Our experiments report new baseline results of ChatGPT on a variety of reasoning tasks and shed novel insights into LLM's profiling, instruction memorization, and pretraining dataset leakage.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative language

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    On TED-talk Appraisal Attitude labels, prompted LLMs agree more with one expert than trainees do, yet Judgement remains hard and absolute IAA stays modest.