The DOI matches its DataCite record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems
Open accessAbstract
State-of-the-art language models can match human performance on many tasks, but they still struggle to robustly perform multi-step mathematical reasoning. To diagnose the failures of current models and support research, we introduce GSM8K, a dataset of 8.5K high quality linguistically diverse grade school math word problems. We find that even the largest transformer models fail to achieve high test performance, despite the conceptual simplicity of this problem distribution. To increase performance, we propose training verifiers to judge the correctness of model completions. At test time, we generate many candidate solutions and select the one ranked highest by the verifier. We demonstrate that verification significantly improves performance on GSM8K, and we provide strong empirical evidence that verification scales more effectively with increased data than a finetuning baseline.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, each task can have different requirements, operations, and dependencies, which makes it difficult to represent them in a unified yet flexible manner (Chen et al., 2021;Cobbe et al., 2021;Yang et al., 2018;Luo et al., 2018).”
From AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The majority of evaluation protocols largely simplify experimental assumptions and design static, pre-defined rules, with relatively short and isolated task settings (Cobbe et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021; Budzianowski et al., 2018).”
From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Another line of research utilizes majority voting to choose candidates based on their execution performance [89, 90].”
From Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as [90]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Cobbe et al. (2021); Lightman et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2023b) train a verifier or a critique model on a high-quality dataset to verify or refine LLM outputs, which can be used to provide feedback for correcting prediction errors.”
From Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet (2023) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al. (2021)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Many established benchmarks struggle to keep pace with the advancements in LM performance and have quickly become saturated [91, 14, 70, 58], leading to discrepancies between the models' perceived and actual capabilities [36].”
From SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientists (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Within tasks, feedback refines solutions or guides actions [1, 2].”
From RSI-Anything: Unlocking Recursive Self-Improvement with World Models (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Majority voting in mathematical reasoning (Cobbe et al., 2021) is a related but coarser ensemble technique on binary correctness”
From RoPoLL: Robust Panel of LLM Judges (2026) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“GSM8K (Grade School Math 8K) is a dataset comprising 8,792 high-quality grade school-level math word problems, including 7,473 for training and 1,319 for testing.”
From EvolKV: Evolutionary KV Cache Compression for LLM Inference (2025) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Each problem is designed to be solvable using only basic arithmetic operations (+, -, ×, ÷) with a difficulty level appropriate for grade school students.”
From A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmetic (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al. [2021]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Knowledge-oriented benchmarks (e.g., MMLU [325] and C-Eval [335]) assess models' world knowledge retention, while reasoning-oriented benchmarks (e.g., GSM8K [318], BBH [336], and MATH [317]) evaluate their ability to solve complex reasoning tasks.”
From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [318]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Best-ofN (Cobbe et al., 2021) and majority voting are practical methods for selecting correct answers, but they may overlook a model's full reasoning potential.”
From Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model? (2025) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Compared to the commonly-used datasets, e.g., MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015), GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), our dataset presents two distinct challenges:”
From Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Notably, ReVISE enhances reasoning performance beyond prior methods, improving accuracy from 27.1 → 31.1% on GSM8K (Maj@3) (Cobbe et al., 2021) with Llama3 1B (Dubey et al., 2024)”
From ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification (2025) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For math reasoning (GSM8k, Cobbe et al., 2021), using continuous thoughts is shown to be beneficial to reasoning accuracy, mirroring the effects of language reasoning chains.”
From Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Early studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) exhibit basic reasoning capabilities in mathematics (Cobbe et al., 2021), coding (Chen et al., 2021), and general reasoning tasks.”
From Cosmos-Reason1: From Physical Common Sense To Embodied Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) provides 8,500 grade-school mathematics word problems requiring multi-step reasoning, with solutions averaging 2-8 reasoning steps.”
From Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression (2026) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Many benchmarks like MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021) and GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) have fixed sets of ground-truth answers, which allow for clear and objective measurements of model performance.”
From ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases (2025) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“they improve accuracy over baselines by 25.9% and 13.2% on GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) and GSM-Hard (Gao et al., 2023) math tasks, respectively, after transferring across domains.”
From Automated Design of Agentic Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Each GSM8K is paired with a numerical reference answer.”
From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“When using model-generated chains of thought, the intermediate steps may not always be correct (Cobbe et al., 2021; Uesato et al., 2022; Lightman et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a).”
From The Llama 3 Herd of Models (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Verifiers, self-training, preference optimization, and verbal feedback turn evaluated trajectories into signals for selection and learning [1-5].”
From RSI-Anything: Unlocking Recursive Self-Improvement with World Models (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Given these criteria, the mathematical reasoning benchmark datasets GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) and MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021b) foot_0 emerge as fitting choices for our test bed, which allow us to study data leakage in depth but also offer a relevant and challenging environment.”
From Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In contrast to other simple benchmarks like LAMBADA [44] or GSM8K [45], which test skills not directly applicable to software engineering, the SWAA set represents actions that are needed in both software engineering work and the longer tasks we study.”
From Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [45]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“(i) Math Word Problems test reasoning on math problems similar to GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021) but with varying levels of relational complexity, particularly in their degree of variable interdependence, which we define as the number of other variables on which a single variable's value depends.”
From Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This category (21 problems) is inspired by the grade-school math problems in datasets such as GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021), but introduces an additional dimension of variable interdependence (i.e., higher relational complexity between the variables).”
From Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“GSM1k is modelled after the GSM8k dataset (Cobbe et al. [2021]), released by OpenAI in 2021, which consists of 8.5k grade school math problems.”
From A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmetic (2024) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al. [2021]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Both context and semantic caching lack flexibility for handling slight variations in input.”
From Cost-Efficient Serving of LLM Agents via Test-Time Plan Caching. arXiv. (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Multi-step reasoning in LLMs typically involves executing sequential logical operations-typically requiring 3-10 intermediate steps-to arrive at solutions that cannot be derived through single-step inference (Cobbe et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2018; Suzgun et al., 2022).”
From Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Cobbe et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · cited 1×
“Specifically, we apply residual dropout (Vaswani et al., 2017) along the residual paths of each layer in the network.”
MethodLanguage Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 1×
“In recent years, large language models have demonstrated impressive skills across many diverse tasks (Wang et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.3215 · Cited by 17,766 · cited 1×
“Previous work has attempted to solve classic math word problem benchmarks with recurrent seq2seq models (Sutskever et al., 2014) and closely related variants (Wang et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018).”
BackgroundScaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1×
“Kaplan et al. (2020) describe the consistent benefits of increasing model size, characterizing scaling trends that hold across many orders of magnitude.”
BackgroundSuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems
Wang, A., Pruksachatkun, Y., Nangia, N., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.00537 · Cited by 1,051
CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense KnowledgePreprint
Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N., & Berant, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.00937 · Cited by 822 · cited 1×
“Other recent reasoning-related datasets have focused on mathematical reasoning on symbolic math (Lample and Charton, 2019), reading comprehension (LogiQA) (Liu et al., 2020), and commonsense question answering (Common-senseQA) (Talmor et al., 2018).”
BackgroundSolving General Arithmetic Word Problems
Roy, S., & Roth, D. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1202 · Cited by 702 · cited 1×
“Early math word problem datasets (Kushman et al., 2014; Roy and Roth, 2015) are relatively small and are not well suited for testing the limits of modern language models.”
BackgroundLogiQA: A Challenge Dataset for Machine Reading Comprehension with Logical Reasoning
Jian, L., Cui, L., Liu, H., Huang, D., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/501 · Cited by 431
Deep Learning for Symbolic MathematicsPreprint
Lample, G., & Charton, F. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.01412 · Cited by 405 · cited 1×
“Other recent reasoning-related datasets have focused on mathematical reasoning on symbolic math (Lample and Charton, 2019), reading comprehension (LogiQA) (Liu et al., 2020), and commonsense question answering (Common-senseQA) (Talmor et al., 2018).”
BackgroundLearning to Automatically Solve Algebra Word Problems
Kushman, N., Zettlemoyer, L., Barzilay, R., & Artzi, Y. (2014) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.3115/v1/p14-1026 · Cited by 400 · cited 1×
“Early math word problem datasets (Kushman et al., 2014; Roy and Roth, 2015) are relatively small and are not well suited for testing the limits of modern language models.”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.13138 · Cited by 4,083
Large language models encode clinical knowledge
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2 · Cited by 4,083
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
“An example of chain-of-thought prompting for the GSM8K benchmark (grade-school math problems) is given below in Figure 8.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
“● Models have the ability to generate neutral language intermediate steps by training from scratch (Ling et al., 2017) or finetuning a pretrained model (Cobbe et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHuang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 4,688
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07682 · Cited by 1,264
Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate
Liang, T., He, Z., Jiao, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.992 · Cited by 1,062
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07864 · Cited by 972
The rise and potential of large language model based agents: a survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0 · Cited by 970
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829
“Self-consistency is far simpler than prior approaches that either train an additional verifier (Cobbe et al., 2021) or train a re-ranker given additional human annotations to improve generation quality (Thoppilan et al.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCode as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Control
Liang, J., Huang, W., Xia, F., Xu, P., Hausman, K., Ichter, B., Florence, P., & Zeng, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra48891.2023.10160591 · Cited by 767
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876
ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none
Kocoń, J., Cichecki, I., Kaszyca, O., Kochanek, M., Szydło, D., Baran, J., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Janz, A., Kanclerz, K., et al. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101861 · Cited by 758
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569
Self-citationDeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning
DeepSeek-AI, Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Zhang, R., Ma, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948 · Cited by 538
Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code
Rozière, B., Gehring, J., Gloeckle, F., Sootla, S., Gat, I., Tan, X. E., Adi, Y., Liu, J., Sauvestre, R., Remez, T., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12950 · Cited by 531
“To measure math-reasoning capabilities of the proposed method, we report results on the GSM8K benchmark Cobbe et al. (2021), which is comprised of a set of middle-school math word problems.”
MethodResultThe Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
Floridi, L. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001 · Cited by 682
Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering for large language models
CHEN, B. ‐., Zhang, Z., Langrené, N., & Zhu, S. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101260 · Cited by 1,097
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888
“LLMs are known to have limited math and reasoning capability [9], which results in its failure of grading such questions because they do not know the correct answers.”
BackgroundMethodA Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures
Borji, A. (2023) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2895792/v1 · Cited by 514
Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey
Huang, J., & Chang, K. C.-C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.67 · Cited by 428
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04761 · Cited by 1,150
Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Models
Wang, L., Xu, W., Lan, Y., Hu, Z., Lan, Y., Lee, R. K.-W., & Lim, E.-P. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.147 · Cited by 344
Dissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 · Cited by 345
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340
CodaMosa: Escaping Coverage Plateaus in Test Generation with Pre-trained Large Language Models
Lemieux, C., Inala, J. P., Lahiri, S. K., & Sen, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00085 · Cited by 306
Can large language models reason about medical questions?
Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Motzfeldt, A. G., & Winther, O. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100943 · Cited by 343
“Generating and combining many CoTs bridges the gap with human-level performances CoTs can be combined and/or filtered using human or automated feedback (Wang et al., 2022; Cobbe et al., 2021).”
BackgroundA review of large language models and autonomous agents in chemistry
Ramos, M. C., Collison, C. J., & White, A. D. (2025) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d4sc03921a · Cited by 274
A Survey on Model Compression for Large Language Models
Zhu, X., Li, J., Liu, Y., Ma, C., & Wang, W. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00704 · Cited by 273
RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control
Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15818 · Cited by 276
“…for a wide range of downstream tasks: large language models can enable not only fluent text generation [1, 2, 3] but emergent problem-solving [4, 5, 6] and creative generation of prose [7, 2] and code [8], while vision-language models enable open-vocabulary visual recognition [9, 10, 11] and…”
BackgroundZhou, H., Hu, C., Yuan, Y., Cui, Y., Jin, Y., Chen, C., Wu, H., Yuan, D., Jiang, L., Wu, D., et al. (2024) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2024.3465447 · Cited by 344
LLM-Adapters: An Adapter Family for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models
Hu, Z., Wang, L., Lan, Y., Xu, W., Lim, E., Bing, L., Xu, X., Poria, S., & Lee, R. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.319 · Cited by 581
Large Language Models Can Self-Improve
Huang, J., Gu, S. S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., & Han, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11610 · Cited by 230
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651 · Cited by 2,314
“We use the Grade School Math 8k (GSM-8k) dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021) for evaluating SELF-REFINE on math reasoning.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCasheekar, A. M., Lahiri, A., Rath, K., Prabhakar, K. S., & Srinivasan, K. (2024) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.100632 · Cited by 264
From Words to Watts: Benchmarking the Energy Costs of Large Language Model Inference
Samsi, S., Zhao, D., McDonald, J., Li, B., Michaleas, A., Jones, M., Bergeron, W., Kepner, J., Tiwari, D., & Gadepally, V. (2023) · 2023 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) · doi:10.1109/hpec58863.2023.10363447 · Cited by 225
Foundation metrics for evaluating effectiveness of healthcare conversations powered by generative AI
Abbasian, M., Khatibi, E., Azimi, I., Oniani, D., Shakeri Hossein Abad, Z., Thieme, A., Sriram, R., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Lin, B., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01074-z · Cited by 213
When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs
Kamoi, R., Zhang, Y., Zhang, N., Han, J., & Zhang, R. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00713 · Cited by 200
Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models
Wang, G., Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Xiao, C., Zhu, Y., Fan, L., & Anandkumar, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16291 · Cited by 222
“[87] Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman.”
BackgroundLarge Language Models Can Self-Improve
Huang, J., Gu, S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., & Han, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.67 · Cited by 230
Generative AI in Higher Education: The ChatGPT Effect
Chan, C. K. Y., & Colloton, T. (2024) · Routledge · doi:10.4324/9781003459026 · Cited by 203
Drori, I., Zhang, S., Shuttleworth, R., Tang, L., Lu, A., Ke, E., Liu, K., Chen, L., Tran, S., Cheng, N., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2123433119 · Cited by 187
STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning
Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., & Goodman, N. D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.14465 · Cited by 182
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.05221 · Cited by 187
A Survey on Mixture of Experts in Large Language Models
Cai, W., Jiang, J., Wang, F., Tang, J., Kim, S., & Huang, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3554028 · Cited by 560
Large language models and their impact in ophthalmology
Betzler, B. K., Chen, H., Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, C. S., Ning, G., Song, S. J., Lee, A. Y., Kawasaki, R., van Wijngaarden, P., Grzybowski, A., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00201-7 · Cited by 161
Hagos, D. H., Battle, R., & Rawat, D. B. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2024.3444742 · Cited by 227
Sui, Y., Zhou, M., Zhou, M., Han, S., & Zhang, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3616855.3635752 · Cited by 155
PAL: Program-aided Language Models
Gao, L., Madaan, A., Zhou, S., Alon, U., Liu, P., Yang, Y., Callan, J., & Neubig, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.10435 · Cited by 155
Legalbench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models
Guha, N., Nyarko, J., Ho, D. E., Ré, C., Chilton, A., Narayana, A., Chohlas-Wood, A., Peters, A., Waldon, B., Rockmore, D., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4583531 · Cited by 154
MathPrompter: Mathematical Reasoning using Large Language Models
Imani, S., Du, L., & Shrivastava, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-industry.4 · Cited by 382
Large Language Models as Optimizers
Yang, C., Wang, X., Lu, Y., Liu, H., Le, Q. V., Zhou, D., & Chen, X. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.03409 · Cited by 151
Understanding Large-Language Model (LLM)-powered Human-Robot Interaction
Kim, C. Y., Lee, C. P., & Mutlu, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610977.3634966 · Cited by 162
Large Language Models Are Reasoning Teachers
Ho, N., Schmid, L., & Yun, S.-Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.830 · Cited by 403
Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model
Hao, S., Gu, Y., Ma, H., Hong, J., Wang, Z., Wang, D., & Hu, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.507 · Cited by 168
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Hanna, E. B., Bressand, F., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.04088 · Cited by 143
Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning
Pan, L., Albalak, A., Wang, X., & Wang, W. Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.12295 · Cited by 144
Reasoning with Language Model Prompting: A Survey
Qiao, S., Ou, Y., Zhang, N., Chen, X., Yao, Y., Deng, S., Tan, C., Huang, F., & Chen, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.294 · Cited by 346
What does CLIP know about a red circle? Visual prompt engineering for VLMs
Shtedritski, A., Rupprecht, C., & Vedaldi, A. (2023) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.01101 · Cited by 191
LLMLingua: Compressing Prompts for Accelerated Inference of Large Language Models
Jiang, H., Wu, Q., Lin, C.-Y., Yang, Y., & Qiu, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.825 · Cited by 168
Human-LLM Collaborative Annotation Through Effective Verification of LLM Labels
Wang, X., Kim, H., Rahman, S., Mitra, K., & Miao, Z. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641960 · Cited by 188
Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context
Shi, F., Chen, X., Misra, K., Scales, N., Dohan, D., Chi, E., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00093 · Cited by 134
“, how is large language model prompting affected by irrelevant context, and what strategies can be used to improve performance? To measure distractibility, we construct the GSM-IC dataset, a grade-school math problem dataset derived from GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) and introduce two different metrics.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKuang, W., Qian, B., Li, Z., Chen, D., Gao, D., Pan, X., Xie, Y., Li, Y., Ding, B., & Zhou, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671573 · Cited by 142
Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Survey
Lyu, Q., Apidianaki, M., & Callison-Burch, C. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00511 · Cited by 196
Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Lyu, Q., Havaldar, S., Stein, A., Zhang, L., Rao, D., Wong, E., Apidianaki, M., & Callison-Burch, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.20 · Cited by 201
Espejel, J. L., Ettifouri, E. H., Alassan, M. S. Y., Chouham, E. M., & Dahhane, W. (2023) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100032 · Cited by 148
Levy, M., Jacoby, A., & Goldberg, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.818 · Cited by 119
Language Models of Code are Few-Shot Commonsense Learners
Madaan, A., Zhou, S., Alon, U., Yang, Y., & Neubig, G. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.90 · Cited by 191
Datasets for large language models: a comprehensive survey
Liu, Y., Cao, J., Liu, C., Ding, K., & Jin, L. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11403-7 · Cited by 268
Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters
Wang, B., Min, S., Deng, X., Shen, J., Wu, Y., Zettlemoyer, L., & Sun, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.153 · Cited by 120
Generative Artificial Intelligence for Chest Radiograph Interpretation in the Emergency Department
Huang, J., Neill, L., Wittbrodt, M., Melnick, D., Klug, M., Thompson, M., Bailitz, J., Loftus, T., Malik, S., Phull, A., et al. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36100 · Cited by 113
Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09388 · Cited by 17,283
How understanding large language models can inform the use of ChatGPT in physics education
Polverini, G., & Gregorcic, B. (2023) · European Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6404/ad1420 · Cited by 160
TaskMatrix.AI: Completing Tasks by Connecting Foundation Models with Millions of APIs
Liang, Y., Wu, C., Song, T., Wu, W., Xia, Y., Liu, Y., Ou, Y., Lu, S., Ji, L., Mao, S., et al. (2024) · Intelligent Computing · doi:10.34133/icomputing.0063 · Cited by 108
Wang, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Wu, Z., Mo, T., Lu, Q., Wang, W., Li, R., Xu, J., Tang, X., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3768165 · Cited by 106
Evolution and Prospects of Foundation Models: From Large Language Models to Large Multimodal Models
Chen, Z., Xu, L., Zheng, H., Chen, L., Tolba, A. K. R., Zhao, L., Yu, K., & Feng, H. (2024) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2024.052618 · Cited by 126
Tool learning with large language models: a survey
Qu, C., Dai, S., Wei, X., Cai, H., Wang, S., Yin, D., Xu, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40678-2 · Cited by 266
DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermism
DeepSeek-AI, :, Bi, X., Chen, D., Chen, G., Chen, S., Dai, D., Deng, C., Ding, H., Dong, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02954 · Cited by 99
“Math datasets including GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021) and CMath (Wei et al., 2023).”
BackgroundMethodMaieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations
Jung, J., Qin, L., Welleck, S., Brahman, F., Bhagavatula, C., Bras, R. J. L., & Choi, Y. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.82 · Cited by 176
Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate
Du, Y., Li, S., Torralba, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Mordatch, I. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14325 · Cited by 1,202
“Using the GSM8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021), the models must correctly solve grade school mathematical reasoning tasks.”
Teaching Small Language Models to Reason
Magister, L. C., Mallinson, J., Adamek, J., Malmi, E., & Severyn, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.151 · Cited by 127
Optimizing generative AI by backpropagating language model feedback
Yuksekgonul, M., Bianchi, F., Boen, J., Liu, S., Lu, P., Huang, Z., Guestrin, C., & Zou, J. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08661-4 · Cited by 85
Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs
Patil, S. G., Zhang, T., Wang, X., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15334 · Cited by 226
Impact of Pretraining Term Frequencies on Few-Shot Numerical Reasoning
Razeghi, Y., Logan IV, R. L., Gardner, M., & Singh, S. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.59 · Cited by 89
Biologically Inspired Design Concept Generation Using Generative Pre-Trained Transformers
Zhu, Q., Zhang, X., & Luo, J. (2023) · Journal of Mechanical Design · doi:10.1115/1.4056598 · Cited by 102
Zhang, X., Li, S., Hauer, B. D., Shi, N. Z., & Kondrak, G. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.491 · Cited by 142
Xiao, T., & Xu, P. (2024) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114691 · Cited by 86
Distilling Reasoning Capabilities into Smaller Language Models
Shridhar, K., Stolfo, A., & Sachan, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.441 · Cited by 79
“We study how smaller models can learn to reason better on three multi-step reasoning datasets: GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), and SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(2024) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3674127 · Cited by 86
ProSA: Assessing and Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs
Zhuo, J., Zhang, S., Fang, X., Duan, H., Lin, D., & Chen, K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.12405 · Cited by 78
“These specific tasks include, but are not limited to, reading comprehension (Sakaguchi et al., 2021; Mostafazadeh et al., 2017), mathematical problem solving (Cobbe et al., 2021; Hendrycks et al., 2021), and code generation (Chen et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2021).”
BackgroundUnderstanding Emergent Abilities of Language Models from the Loss Perspective
Du, Z., Zeng, A., Dong, Y., & Tang, J. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-1683 · Cited by 76
RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs
Chaudhari, S., Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., Deshpande, A., & Castro da Silva, B. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3743127 · Cited by 92
Liu, Y., Li, D., Wang, K., Xiong, Z., Shi, F., Wang, J., Li, B., & Hang, B. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103809 · Cited by 91
Agentic Large Language Models, a Survey
Plaat, A., Van Duijn, M., Van Stein, N., Preuss, M., Van der Putten, P., & Batenburg, K. J. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.18675 · Cited by 75
Wu, Z., Wang, Y., Ye, J., & Kong, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.79 · Cited by 158
Large language models for life cycle assessments: Opportunities, challenges, and risks
Preuss, N., Alshehri, A. S., & You, F. (2024) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142824 · Cited by 71
Look Before You Leap: An Exploratory Study of Uncertainty Analysis for Large Language Models
Huang, Y., Song, J., Wang, Z., Zhao, S., Chen, H., Juefei-Xu, F., & Ma, L. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2024.3519464 · Cited by 275
Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges
Guo, T., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Chang, R., Pei, S., Chawla, N. V., Wiest, O., & Zhang, X. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01680 · Cited by 1,713
Metadata
- Authors
- Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., Hesse, C., & Schulman, J.
- ORCID
- Kosaraju, Vineet
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2110.14168
- OpenAlex
- W3210904070
- Cited by
- 575
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 137 · 2024: 156 · 2023: 216 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- mathematical word problems, large language models, solution verification, transformer models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
