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
Items 101–200 of 793
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
Lanzi, P. L., & Loiacono, D. (2023) · Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) · doi:10.1145/3583131.3590351 · Cited by 80
Making Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifier
Li, Y., Lin, Z., Zhang, S., Fu, Q., Chen, B., Lou, J.-G., & Chen, W. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.291 · Cited by 69
He, K., Mao, R., Lin, Q., Ruan, Y., Lan, X., Feng, M., & Cambria, E. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4809363 · Cited by 69
A Review on the Use of Large Language Models as Virtual Tutors
García-Méndez, S., de Arriba-Pérez, F., & Somoza-López, M. D. C. (2024) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-024-00530-2 · Cited by 95
On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs
Kenton, Z., Siegel, N. Y., Kramár, J., Brown-Cohen, J., Albanie, S., Bulian, J., Agarwal, R., Lindner, D., Tang, Y., Goodman, N. D., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.04622 · Cited by 66
A Survey of Deep Learning for Mathematical Reasoning
Lu, P., Qiu, L., Yu, W., Welleck, S., & Chang, K.-W. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.817 · Cited by 145
Phan, L., Gatti, A., Han, Z., Li, N., Hu, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, C. B. C., Shaaban, M., Ling, J., Shi, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14249 · Cited by 65
Self-citationReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMs
Chen, J., Saha, S., & Bansal, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.381 · Cited by 64
Automatic Prompt Augmentation and Selection with Chain-of-Thought from Labeled Data
Shum, K., Diao, S., & Zhang, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.811 · Cited by 79
Toward large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models
Xu, F., Hao, Q., Shao, C., Zong, Z., Li, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Lan, X., Gong, J., et al. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101370 · Cited by 533
MultiHiertt: Numerical Reasoning over Multi Hierarchical Tabular and Textual Data
Zhao, Y., Li, Y., Li, C., & Zhang, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.454 · Cited by 118
Self-Edit: Fault-Aware Code Editor for Code Generation
Zhang, K., Li, Z., Li, J., Li, G., & Jin, Z. G. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.45 · Cited by 141
DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines
Khattab, O., Singhvi, A., Maheshwari, P., Zhang, Z., Santhanam, K., Vardhamanan, S., Haq, S., Sharma, A., Joshi, T. T., Moazam, H., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.03714 · Cited by 911
“We evaluate on the popular GSM8K dataset with grade school math questions (Cobbe et al., 2021).”
MethodFoundation models and intelligent decision-making: Progress, challenges, and perspectives
Huang, J., Xu, Y., Wang, Q., Wang, Q., Liang, X., Wang, F., Zhang, Z., Wei, W., Zhang, B., Huang, L., et al. (2025) · The Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2025.100948 · Cited by 87
Evolutionary optimization of model merging recipes
Akiba, T., Shing, M., Tang, Y., Sun, Q., & Ha, D. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00975-8 · Cited by 58
CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing
Gou, Z., Shao, Z., Gong, Y., Shen, Y., Yang, Y., Duan, N., & Chen, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.11738 · Cited by 561
“Here’s a better solution: ‘‘‘python initial_fruits = 50 num_of_fruits_in_6th_year = 3 * initial_fruits num_of_fruits_in_7th_year = 7 * initial_fruits num_of_fruits_in_9th_year = 0 num_of_fruits_in_10th_year = 20 * initial_fruits num_of_fruits_in_8th_year = num_of_fruits_in_10th_year - 200 total_fruits = ( initial_frui…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models
Mirzadeh, I., Alizadeh, K., Shahrokhi, H., Tuzel, O., Bengio, S., & Farajtabar, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05229 · Cited by 714
“The GSM8K (Grade School Math 8K) dataset Cobbe et al. (2021) has emerged as a popular benchmark for evaluating the mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs.”
Is Education Losing the Race with Technology?
OECD (2023) · Educational research and innovation · doi:10.1787/73105f99-en · Cited by 86
MaScQA: investigating materials science knowledge of large language models
Zaki, M. F. M., Jayadeva, Mausam, M., & Krishnan, N. M. A. (2023) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d3dd00188a · Cited by 66
Scalable information extraction from free text electronic health records using large language models
Gu, B., Shao, V., Liao, Z., Carducci, V., Brufau, S. R., Yang, J., & Desai, R. J. (2025) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-025-02470-z · Cited by 68
Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate
Wang, B., Yue, X., & Sun, H. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.795 · Cited by 127
Kim, S., Joo, S., Kim, D., Jang, J., Ye, S., Shin, J., & Seo, M. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.782 · Cited by 139
Battle of the Wordsmiths: Comparing ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, and BardPreprint
Borji, A., & Mohammadian, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4476855 · Cited by 58
Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs
Xiong, M., Hu, Z., Lu, X., Li, Y., Fu, J., He, J., & Hooi, B. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.13063 · Cited by 618
Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models
Arora, D., Singh, H., & Mausam, M. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.468 · Cited by 63
Chen, J., Lu, X., Du, Y., Rejtig, M., Bagley, R., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. J. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642377 · Cited by 66
Evaluating language models for mathematics through interactions
Collins, K. M., Jiang, A. Q., Frieder, S., Wong, L., Zilka, M., Bhatt, U., Lukasiewicz, T., Wu, Y., Tenenbaum, J. B., Hart, W., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2318124121 · Cited by 108
TelecomGPT: A Framework to Build Telecom-Specific Large Language Models
Zou, H., Zhao, Q., Tian, Y., Bariah, L., Bader, F., Lestable, T., & Debbah, M. A. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Machine Learning in Communications and Networking · doi:10.1109/tmlcn.2025.3593184 · Cited by 109
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Gu, B., Yang, M., & Li, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.15938 · Cited by 52
“We choose the HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021) dataset for code generation and the GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) dataset for logical reasoning.”
EdgeLLM: Fast On-Device LLM Inference With Speculative Decoding
Xu, D., Yin, W., Zhang, H., Jin, X., Zhang, Y., Wei, S., Xu, M., & Liu, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2024.3513457 · Cited by 65
LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression
Pan, Z., Wu, Q., Jiang, H., Xia, M., Luo, X., Zhang, J., Lin, Q., Rühle, V., Yang, Y., Lin, C.-Y., et al. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.57 · Cited by 58
SCOTT: Self-Consistent Chain-of-Thought Distillation
Wang, P., Wang, Z., Li, Z., Gao, Y., Yin, B., & Ren, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.304 · Cited by 119
Liu, Q., Li, F., Ng, K. K. H., Han, J.-H., & Feng, S. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126422 · Cited by 59
ThoughtSource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data
Ott, S., Hebenstreit, K., Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Moradi, M., Mayrhauser, M., Praas, R., Winther, O., & Samwald, M. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02433-3 · Cited by 66
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Gu, B., Yang, M., & Li, G. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.716 · Cited by 52
LLM4VV: Developing LLM-driven testsuite for compiler validation
Munley, C., Jarmusch, A., & Chandrasekaran, S. (2024) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.05.034 · Cited by 55
RoboVQA: Multimodal Long-Horizon Reasoning for Robotics
Sermanet, P., Ding, T., Zhao, J. W., Xia, F., Dwibedi, D., Gopalakrishnan, K., Chan, C., Dulac-Arnold, G., Maddineni, S., Joshi, N. J., et al. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610216 · Cited by 108
KG-GPT: A General Framework for Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs Using Large Language Models
Kim, J., Kwon, Y., Jo, Y., & Choi, E. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.631 · Cited by 96
Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymore
Li, C., & Flanigan, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29808 · Cited by 47
GeoLLM: A specialized large language model framework for intelligent geotechnical design
Xu, H., Zhang, N., Yin, Z., & Njock, P. G. A. (2024) · Computers and Geotechnics · doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106849 · Cited by 50
Exploring students’ experience of ChatGPT in STEM education
Valeri, F., Nilsson, P., & Cederqvist, A. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100360 · Cited by 73
Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning
Ye, X., Iyer, S. V., Çelikyılmaz, A., Stoyanov, V., Durrett, G., & Pasunuru, R. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.273 · Cited by 79
EduPlanner: LLM-Based Multiagent Systems for Customized and Intelligent Instructional Design
Zhang, X., Zhang, C., Sun, J., Xiao, J., Yang, Y., & Luo, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3561332 · Cited by 56
Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report
Hui, B., Yang, J., Cui, Z., Yang, J., Liu, D., Zhang, L., Liu, T., Zhang, J., Yu, B., Lu, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12186 · Cited by 65
“We removed key datasets such as HumanEval, MBPP, GSM8K, and MATH.”
MethodBatch Prompting: Efficient Inference with Large Language Model APIs
Cheng, Z., Kasai, J., & Yu, T. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.74 · Cited by 95
Scaling Unlocks Broader Generation and Deeper Functional Understanding of Proteins
Bhatnagar, A., Jain, S., Beazer, J., Curran, S. C., Hoffnagle, A. M., Ching, K., Martyn, M., Nayfach, S., Ruffolo, J. A., & Madani, A. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-1536 · Cited by 55
Chakraborty, N., Ornik, M., & Driggs-Campbell, K. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3716846 · Cited by 60
Jin, W., Gao, Y., Tao, T., Wang, X., Wang, N., Wu, B., & Zhao, B. (2025) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1155/int/5920142 · Cited by 50
Clover: Closed-Loop Verifiable Code Generation
Sun, C., Sheng, Y., Padon, O., & Barrett, C. (2024) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65112-0_7 · Cited by 43
Graph Reasoning for Question Answering with Triplet Retrieval
Li, S., Gao, Y., Jiang, H., Yin, Q., Li, Z., Yan, X., Zhang, C., & Yin, B. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.208 · Cited by 42
PsycoLLM: Enhancing LLM for Psychological Understanding and Evaluation
Hu, J., Dong, T., Luo, G., Ma, H., Zou, P., Sun, X. N., Guo, D., Yang, X., & Wang, M. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2024.3497725 · Cited by 58
Zhang, Z., Yao, Y., Zhang, A., Tang, X., Ma, X., He, Z., Wang, Y., Gerstein, M., Wang, R., Liu, G., et al. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3719341 · Cited by 51
Teaching Code LLMs to Use Autocompletion Tools in Repository-Level Code Generation
Wang, C., Zhang, J., Feng, Y., Li, T., Sun, W., Liu, Y., & Peng, X. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3714462 · Cited by 40
When Language Model Meets Private Library
Zan, D., Chen, B., Lin, Z., Guan, B., Yongji, W., & Lou, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.21 · Cited by 72
Mačina, J., Daheim, N., Chowdhury, S. P., Sinha, T., Kapur, M., Gurevych, I., & Sachan, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.372 · Cited by 62
Autonomous medical evaluation for guideline adherence of large language models
Fast, D., Adams, L. C., Busch, F., Fallon, C., Huppertz, M., Siepmann, R. M., Prucker, P., Bayerl, N., Truhn, D., Makowski, M. R., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01356-6 · Cited by 51
MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning
Chen, J., Prasad, A., Saha, S., Stengel-Eskin, E., & Bansal, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1660 · Cited by 38
Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought
Yoran, O., Wolfson, T., Bogin, B., Katz, U., Deutch, D., & Berant, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.13007 · Cited by 38
Large Language Models are Temporal and Causal Reasoners for Video Question Answering
Ko, D., Lee, J. E., Kang, W., Roh, B., & Kim, H. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.261 · Cited by 66
Higher education assessment practice in the era of generative AI tools
(2024) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.28 · Cited by 37
Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet
Huang, J., Chen, X., Mishra, S., Zheng, H. S., Yu, A. W., Song, X., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01798 · Cited by 712
“We adopt their method to test performance on GSM8K.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOpen-ended Knowledge Tracing for Computer Science Education
Liu, N., Wang, Z., Baraniuk, R. G., & Lan, A. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.254 · Cited by 39
Automatic Generation of Socratic Subquestions for Teaching Math Word Problems
Shridhar, K., Mačina, J., El‐Assady, M., Sinha, T., Kapur, M., & Sachan, M. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.277 · Cited by 62
PlanGenLLMs: A Modern Survey of LLM Planning Capabilities
Wei, H., Zhang, Z., He, S., Xia, T., Pan, S., & Liu, F. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.958 · Cited by 36
The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Survey
Masterman, T., Besen, S., Sawtell, M., & Chao, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.11584 · Cited by 35
“Many language model benchmarks are designed to be solved in a single iteration, with no tool calls, such as MMLU or GSM8K [3, 10].”
BackgroundGenerative approach to Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis with GPT Language Models
Chumakov, S., Kovantsev, A., & Surikov, A. (2023) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.12.030 · Cited by 35
REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate RepresentationsPreprint
Paul, D., Ismayilzada, M., Peyrard, M., Borges, B., Bosselut, A., West, R., & Faltings, B. V. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.01904 · Cited by 35
LAMBADA: Backward Chaining for Automated Reasoning in Natural Language
Kazemi, M., Kim, N., Bhatia, D. S., Xu, X., & Ramachandran, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.361 · Cited by 79
PsyCoT: Psychological Questionnaire as Powerful Chain-of-Thought for Personality Detection
Yang, T., Shi, T., Wan, F., Quan, X., Wang, Q., Wu, B., & Wu, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.216 · Cited by 50
Attention heads of large language models
Zheng, Z., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Song, S., Yang, M., Tang, B., Xiong, F., & Li, Z. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101176 · Cited by 143
TheoremQA: A Theorem-driven Question Answering Dataset
Chen, W., Yin, M., Ku, M., Lu, P., Wan, Y., Ma, X., Xu, J., Wang, X., & Xia, T. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.489 · Cited by 141
Is Your LLM Outdated? A Deep Look at Temporal Generalization
Zhu, C., Chen, N., Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., Tiwari, P., & Wang, B. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.381 · Cited by 33
Loya, M., Sinha, D., & Futrell, R. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.241 · Cited by 33
Solving Math Word Problems concerning Systems of Equations with GPT-3
Zong, M., & Krishnamachari, B. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i13.26896 · Cited by 37
Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement via Prompt Evolution
Fernando, C., Banarse, D., Michalewski, H., Osindero, S., & Rocktäschel, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.16797 · Cited by 31
PADL: Language-Directed Physics-Based Character Control
Juravsky, J., Guo, Y., Fidler, S., & Peng, X. B. (2022) · SIGGRAPH Asia Conference Papers · doi:10.1145/3550469.3555391 · Cited by 40
Three Bricks to Consolidate Watermarks for Large Language Models
Fernandez, P., Chaffin, A., Tit, K., Chappelier, V., & Furon, T. (2023) · IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/wifs58808.2023.10374576 · Cited by 63
Context Length Alone Hurts LLM Performance Despite Perfect Retrieval
Du, Y., Tian, M., Ronanki, S., Rongali, S., Bodapati, S. B., Galstyan, A., Wells, A., Schwartz, R., Huerta, E. A., & Peng, H. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1264 · Cited by 39
(2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.364 · Cited by 38
Limitations of Language Models in Arithmetic and Symbolic Induction
Jing, Q., Wang, H., Li, Z., Li, S., & Yan, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.516 · Cited by 90
Generating Natural Language Proofs with Verifier-Guided Search
Yang, K., Deng, J., & Chen, D. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.7 · Cited by 55
Large language models as tool makers
Cai, T., Wang, X., Ma, T., Chen, X., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.17126 · Cited by 28
SynAsk: unleashing the power of large language models in organic synthesis
Zhang, C., Lin, Q., Zhu, B., Yang, H., Lian, X., Deng, H., Zheng, J., & Liao, K. (2024) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d4sc04757e · Cited by 33
The Platonic Representation Hypothesis
Huh, M., Cheung, B., Wang, T., & Isola, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.07987 · Cited by 35
“We observe an “emergence”-esque trend on GSM8K performance as the alignment score increases. and obtain the average sentence embedding from the language encoder, as the embedding for <col> (details below).”
InfluentialEffective Long-Context Scaling of Foundation Models
Xiong, W., Liu, J., Molybog, I., Zhang, H., Bhargava, P., Hou, R., Martin, L., Rungta, R., Sankararaman, K. A., Oguz, B., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.260 · Cited by 33
Mitigating reasoning hallucination through Multi-agent Collaborative Filtering
Shi, J., Zhao, J., Wu, X., Xu, R., Jiang, Y.-H., & He, L. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125723 · Cited by 34
A diversity-enhanced knowledge distillation model for practical math word problem solving
Zhang, Y., Zhou, G., Xie, Z., Ma, J., & Huang, J. X. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104059 · Cited by 28
SeedLLM·Rice: A large language model integrated with rice biological knowledge graph
Yang, F., Kong, H., Ying, J., Chen, Z., Luo, T., Jiang, W., Yuan, Z., Wang, Z., Ma, Z., Wang, S., et al. (2025) · Molecular Plant · doi:10.1016/j.molp.2025.05.013 · Cited by 29
Better Zero-Shot Reasoning with Self-Adaptive Prompting
Wan, X., Sun, R., Dai, H., Arık, S. Ö., & Pfister, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.216 · Cited by 56
Code Execution with Pre-trained Language Models
Liu, C., Lu, S., Chen, W., Jiang, D., Svyatkovskiy, A., Fu, S., Sundaresan, N., & Duan, N. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.308 · Cited by 37
Entailer: Answering Questions with Faithful and Truthful Chains of Reasoning
Tafjord, O., Mishra, B. D., & Clark, P. A. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.134 · Cited by 35
Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters
Snell, C., Lee, J., Xu, K., & Kumar, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.03314 · Cited by 27
Gu, Z., Jia, W., Piccardi, M., & Yu, P. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103078 · Cited by 27
The fine art of fine-tuning: A structured review of advanced LLM fine-tuning techniques
Pratap, S., Aranha, A. R., Kumar, D., Malhotra, G., Iyer, A. P. N., & Shylaja, S. S. (2025) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2025.100144 · Cited by 33
Transcending Scaling Laws with 0.1% Extra Compute
Tay, Y., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Tran, V., So, D. R., Shakeri, S., Garcia, X., Zheng, S., Rao, J., Chowdhery, A., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.91 · Cited by 95
RA-DIT: Retrieval-Augmented Dual Instruction Tuning
Lin, X. V., Chen, X., Chen, M., Shi, W., Lomeli, M., James, R., Rodriguez, P., Kahn, J., Szilvasy, G., Lewis, M., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01352 · Cited by 26
Self-citationAgentBoard: An analytical evaluation board of multi-turn LLM agents
Ma, C., Zhang, J., Zhu, Z., Yang, C., Yang, Y., Jin, Y., Lan, Z., Kong, L., & He, J. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-2365 · Cited by 26
Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents
Yehudai, A., Eden, L., Li, A., Uziel, G., Zhao, Y., Bar-Haim, R., Cohan, A., & Shmueli-Scheuer, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16416 · Cited by 26
Quantifying Uncertainty in Answers from any Language Model and Enhancing their Trustworthiness
Chen, J., & Mueller, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.283 · Cited by 33
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
