Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
AbstractThere is a failure mode in large language models that we do not have a good name for, and thatwe therefore tend not to treat seriously enough. It is not hallucination — the model is not assertingsomething false. It is not refusal — the model answers at length. It is the production of responses thatcarry the complete outward form of careful reasoning while the cognitive work that reasoning issupposed to represent has not, in any meaningful sense, occurred. We call this theatrical compliance,and we argue that it is, in practical terms, more dangerous than either of the failure modes thatcurrently dominate alignment research. This paper identifies the phenomenon, characterizes its fiveprincipal forms, explains the asymmetry that makes it particularly costly in high-stakes settings, andoutlines the design requirements for systems intended to resist it. We do not describe such a systemin detail here. Our goal is to establish theatrical compliance as a research problem in its own rightand to argue that addressing it requires instruments operating at a fundamentally different level ofabstraction than task-level prompting frameworks.Keywords: theatrical compliance, large language models, AI reasoning quality, cognitiveprocess evaluation, prompt engineering, metacognitive systems.
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
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?
Recent agent frameworks adopt reasoning heuristics like Chain-of-Thought and ReAct to simulate deliberative processes.
“Furthermore, while recent agent frameworks adopt reasoning heuristics like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [163,193] and ReAct [136] to simulate deliberative processes, these approaches remain shallow in semantic comprehension.”
From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [163]
Section 2 (p. 2) describes Chain-of-Thought as mimicking a step-by-step thought process, and the Discussion (p. 9) says it emulates human reasoners' thought processes. Our copy does not establish that recent agent frameworks adopt it; ReAct has a separate citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs show limitations such as sensitivity to surface form variation, degraded performance under increased compositionality, and poor generalization.
“However, they also report limitations such as sensitivity to surface form variation, degraded performance under increased compositionality, and poor generalization”
From From Human Cognition to Neural Activations: Probing the Computational Primitives of Spatial Reasoning in LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
Section 5 (p. 8) reports lower performance on longer, out-of-domain symbolic tasks, but also finds that sufficiently large models using chain-of-thought prompting generalize beyond the lengths shown in exemplars. Section 3.4 (p. 6) reports performance variation across differently written prompts, not specifically sensitivity to surface-form variation in the tasks themselves. The paper therefore supports narrower limitations than the claim’s unqualified assertion of poor generalization. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn most cases, CoT enhancement can improve model performance.
“In most cases, this enhancement can improve model performance39,40.”
From Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
The Results (p. 4) report performance gains from chain-of-thought prompting for models of approximately 100B parameters, especially on more complicated problems. They also say it does not positively affect small models, while Appendix A.1 (p. 16) says it hurts performance for most models below 10B parameters. The paper therefore supports improvement under particular conditions, not the unqualified claim that it improves performance in most cases. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA comparatively simple chain-of-thought (CoT) baseline demonstrates competitive accuracy and efficiency.
“Interestingly, a comparatively simple chain-of-thought (CoT) baseline demonstrates competitive accuracy and efficiency.”
From Can LLMs Correct Themselves? A Benchmark of Self-Correction in LLMs (2025) · cites this paper as [61]
Section 2 (p. 3) describes CoT prompting as readily elicited by adding examples to few-shot prompts, and Section 4 (p. 7) reports strong accuracy relative to baselines on some tasks. The paper does not establish competitive efficiency; Section 3.3 (p. 6) instead notes that CoT uses additional intermediate tokens. Its accuracy gains are also qualified by model size and task, as Section 3.2 (p. 4) explains. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe agentic loop acts as a powerful test-time scaling mechanism.
“This agentic loop acts as a powerful test-time scaling mechanism [25, 17, 32], utilizing the reasoning capabilities [31] of LLMs at each turn while grounding them through environment responses.”
From The Complexity Trap: Simple Observation Masking Is as Efficient as LLM Summarization for Agent Context Management (2025) · cites this paper as [31]
Section 2 (p. 3) says chain-of-thought prompting can allocate additional computation to problems requiring more reasoning steps, supporting the test-time scaling idea. But the paper studies prompted reasoning, not an agentic loop, so it does not establish that the loop itself is a powerful scaling mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The other approach to provide LLMs with user-defined runtime rails is to use chain-of-thought (CoT).
“The other approach to provide LLMs with userdefined runtime rails is to use chain-of-thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022).”
From NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Rails (2023) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
Section 2 (pp. 2–3) describes chain-of-thought prompting as supplying human-written reasoning examples to guide a model’s intermediate steps. This supports using CoT as a user-specified prompt, but the paper does not establish it as a way to impose user-defined runtime rails or constraints; the Discussion (p. 9) notes that it cannot guarantee correct reasoning paths. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe scaling up of network and training data leads to leap-forward capabilities in LLMs, including emergent abilities such as in-context learning, instruction following, and step-by-step reasoning.
“The scaling up of network and training data lead to the leap-forward of large language models' capability.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The Introduction (p. 2) says scaling model size improves performance, and the Conclusions (p. 9) identify chain-of-thought reasoning as an emergent property of model scale. The paper does not establish that scaling training data produces these gains; Appendix A.1 (p. 16) leaves the causal role of pretraining data for future work. The copy also does not support the claim’s added examples of in-context learning and instruction following. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExplanations help improve model transparency, persuasiveness, and reliability, and facilitate the identification and rectification of potential errors.
“This not only helps to improve the model's transparency, persuasiveness, and reliability, but also facilitates the identification and rectification of potential errors through insightful explanations.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Section 2 (p. 3) says a chain of thought provides an interpretable window into a model’s behavior and opportunities to debug where its reasoning went wrong. That supports transparency and identifying errors, but the paper does not establish that explanations improve persuasiveness or reliability, or that they themselves rectify errors. Appendix D.2 (p. 28) cautions that generated reasoning is not guaranteed to be coherent or factually correct. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChain of Thought could trigger LLM to reason and engage in step-by-step thinking, which benefits the tool-using capability.
“For instance, the Chain of Thought proposed by Jason [38] could trigger LLM to reason and engage in step-by-step thinking, which benefits the tool-using capability.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Section 2 (pp. 2–3) says chain-of-thought prompting elicits intermediate, step-by-step reasoning in sufficiently large language models. The paper does not establish that it improves their tool-using capability. Appendix B (p. 20) reports gains from applying an external calculator to generated reasoning, but describes that calculator as post-hoc rather than as a tool the model learns to use. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese components are fundamental for task decomposition, logical inference, action execution, and iterative improvement, following established patterns in agentic systems literature.
“These components are fundamental for task decomposition, logical inference, action execution, and iterative improvement, following established patterns in agentic systems literature.”
From Understanding and Optimizing Agentic Workflows via Shapley value (2025) · cites this paper as Wei et al. 2022
Section 2 (p. 3) says chain-of-thought prompting can decompose multi-step problems and facilitate reasoning, supporting the task-decomposition and inference parts. The paper does not establish action execution or iterative improvement as components of agentic systems; its SayCan example in Section 4 (p. 7) concerns mapping instructions to robot actions, not executing them. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThinking (considering evidence) has been shown to improve the quality of reasoning and future actions.
“which has been shown to improve the quality of reasoning and future actions71,72”
From Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [71]
The Conclusions (p. 9) report that chain-of-thought prompting enhances reasoning-task performance in sufficiently large language models. The paper does not show that thinking or considering evidence improves future actions, and the Discussion (p. 9) cautions that the models' reasoning paths are not guaranteed to be correct. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUnlike raw finetuning, few-shot scratchpad prompting scales with model size.
“Unlike raw finetuning, this approach does scale with model size [4].”
From Exploring Length Generalization in Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Results (p. 4) report that few-shot chain-of-thought prompting gains performance as model size increases, with gains emerging around 100B parameters. The Discussion (p. 8) contrasts its scaling with standard prompting, not raw finetuning; our copy does not establish that raw finetuning fails to scale. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCoT prompting has been proposed to bolster LLM reasoning capabilities, demonstrating improved performance across various reasoning and NLP tasks.
“For instance, CoT prompting (Wei et al., 2022;Wang et al., 2022) has been proposed to bolster LLM reasoning capabilities, demonstrating improved performance across various reasoning and natural language processing tasks.”
From Large language models as tool makers (2023) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
The Introduction (p. 2) reports that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms standard prompting on arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic reasoning benchmarks. The paper supports improved reasoning performance, but does not demonstrate improvements across NLP tasks more generally; Appendix A.3 (p. 18) also says benefits vary by task. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAgentic systems embed iterative reasoning capabilities using frameworks such as ReAct, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and Tree of Thoughts.
“Agentic systems embed iterative reasoning capabilities using frameworks such as ReAct [136], Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting [163], and Tree of Thoughts [164].”
From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [163]
For many of the paper's tasks, performance could likely be improved by more advanced prompting techniques, such as chain-of-thought prompting.
“For many of our tasks, it is likely that performance could be improved by more advanced prompting techniques; e.g., Wei et al.’s chain-of-thought approach (26) substantially improved performance on last-letter concatenation, which is similar to our acronym task.”
From Embers of autoregression show how large language models are shaped by the problem they are trained to solve (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
Chain-of-thought has been proposed to improve the ability of large language models to perform reasoning and derive final answers by introducing intermediate reasoning steps.
“In previous work (Wei et al., 2022), chain-of-thought (CoT) has been proposed to improve the ability of LLMs to perform reasoning and derive the final answer by introducing a series of intermediate reasoning steps.”
From HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
CoT prompting is a powerful method by breaking down complex tasks into a series of intermediate steps.
“CoT prompting is a powerful method by breaking down complex tasks into a series of intermediate steps [17].”
From Enhancing hepatopathy clinical trial efficiency: a secure, large language model-powered pre-screening pipeline (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Chain-of-Thought prompting elicits explicit reasoning steps from LLMs, improving performance on multi-step tasks.
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting elicits explicit reasoning steps from LLMs, improving performance on multi-step tasks (Wei et al., 2022).”
From VeReaFine: Iterative Verification Reasoning Refinement RAG for Hallucination-Resistant on Open-Ended Clinical QA (2025) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques enable models to generate more extensive outputs detailing their reasoning processes.
“Conversely, techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) enable models to generate more extensive outputs detailing their reasoning processes.”
From Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Prompt engineering demonstrated that model behavior could be substantially altered without touching the weights.
“Prompt engineering demonstrated that model behavior could be substantially altered without touching the weights: few-shot examples, role descriptions, chain-of-thought decomposition, and self-consistency traces all changed how the same model performed on the same underlying task [Wei et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2023b, Kojima et al., 2022].”
From Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering (2026) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
By providing the models with the 'chain of thoughts', the large language models exhibit emergent abilities for reasoning and can arrive at conclusions or judgments according to the evidence or logics.
“By providing the models with the 'chain of thoughts' [38], such as prompting with 'let us think about it step by step' , the large language models exhibit emergent abilities for reasoning and can arrive at conclusions or judgments according to the evidence or logics.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
The opacity of the reasoning process of each step remains a concern, and chain-of-thought prompting may have unfaithful explanations.
“Some recent developments [38, 156] involve utilizing chains of thought to prompt reasoning for improved interpretability; however, the opacity of the reasoning process of each step remains a concern, and [157] has questioned the possible unfaithful explanations of chain-of-thought prompting.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
CoT helps guide the model to output the final answer step by step.
“It helps guide the model to output the final answer step by step (Wei et al., 2022;Peng et al., 2023;Kojima et al., 2022).”
From CodeTransOcean: A Comprehensive Multilingual Benchmark for Code Translation (2023) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
Wei et al. [4], Nye et al. [15] and Lewkowycz et al. [5] showed that combining prompting (in-context learning) with scratchpad strategies presents a powerful combination.
“Wei et al. [4], Nye et al. [15] and Lewkowycz et al. [5] showed that combining prompting (i.e. in-context learning) with scratchpad strategies present a powerful combination.”
From Exploring Length Generalization in Large Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
Language models can generate reasoning chains to answer complex questions.
“Language models can generate reasoning chains to answer complex questions (Wei et al., 2022).”
From RARR: Researching and revising what language models say, using language models (2023) · cites this paper as Wei et al., 2022
GPT is known to have difficulty with answering questions that require multiple hops of reasoning [48].
“GPT is known to have difficulty with answering questions that require multiple hops of reasoning [48].”
From Thrilled by Your Progress! Large Language Models (GPT-4) No Longer Struggle to Pass Assessments in Higher Education Programming Courses (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
Chain of thought approaches can partially bridge the generalization gap.
“This generalization gap can be partially bridged by “chain of thought” approaches, whereby a model is prompted to generate intermediate computation steps before arriving at an answer [147].”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [147]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318 · see citing works
Jakubův, J., Chvalovský, K., Goertzel, Z., et al. (2023) · DROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · doi:10.4230/lipics.itp.2023.19 · Cited by 76,648 · see citing works
Kaugeranna, R., Kaugeranna, E., & Aion, (. S. 4. 6. (2023) · DROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · doi:10.4230/lipics.giscience.2023.43 · Cited by 13,695 · see citing works
Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data
Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., & Pentland, A. '. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops · doi:10.1109/spw.2015.27 · Cited by 2,617 · see citing works
On Microtargeting Socially Divisive Ads
Ribeiro, F. N., Saha, K., Babaei, M., Henrique, L., Messias, J., Benevenuto, F., Goga, O., Gummadi, K. P., & Redmiles, E. M. (2019) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287580 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 85
- Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, et al. 2022. Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691 . · arXiv
- Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. MathQA: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operationbased formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Daniel Andor, Luheng He, Kenton Lee, and Emily Pitler. 2019. Giving BERT a calculator: Finding operations and arguments with reading comprehension. EMNLP .
- Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein, and Sergey Levine. 2018. Learning with latent language. NAACL .
- Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. 2021. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 . · arXiv
- Kaj Bostrom, Xinyu Zhao, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Greg Durrett. 2021. Flexible generation of natural language deductions. EMNLP .
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS .
- Jonathon Cai, Richard Shin, and Dawn Song. 2017. Making neural programming architectures generalize via recursion. ICLR .
- Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2018. e-SNLI: Natural language inference with natural language explanations. NeurIPS .
- Howard Chen, Jacqueline He, Karthik Narasimhan, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Can rationalization improve robustness? NAACL .
- Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 . · arXiv
- Xinyun Chen, Chen Liang, Adams Wei Yu, Denny Zhou, Dawn Song, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Neural symbolic reader: Scalable integration of distributed and symbolic representations for reading comprehension. ICLR .
- Ting-Rui Chiang and Yun-Nung Chen. 2019. Semantically-aligned equation generation for solving and reasoning math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , pages 2656-2668, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Peter Clark, Oyvind Tafjord, and Kyle Richardson. 2020. Transformers as soft reasoners over language. IJCAI .
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 . · arXiv
- Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. NAACL .
- Honghua Dong, Jiayuan Mao, Tian Lin, Chong Wang, Lihong Li, and Denny Zhou. 2019. Neural logic machines. ICLR .
- Dheeru Dua, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2020. Benefits of intermediate annotations in reading comprehension. ACL .
- Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? A question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. TACL .
- Yuling Gu, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, and Peter Clark. 2022. DREAM: Uncovering mental models behind language models. NAACL .
- Braden Hancock, Paroma Varma, Stephanie Wang, Martin Bringmann, Percy Liang, and Christopher Ré. 2018. Training classifiers with natural language explanations. ACL .
- Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. 2022. When can models learn from explanations? a formal framework for understanding the roles of explanation data. ACL . https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.02201 · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874 . · arXiv
- Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Oren Etzioni, and Nate Kushman. 2014. Learning to solve arithmetic word problems with verb categorization. EMNLP .
- Zhanming Jie, Jierui Li, and Wei Lu. 2022. Learning to reason deductively: Math word problem solving as complex relation extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10316 . · arXiv
- Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361 . · arXiv
- Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. MAWPS: A math word problem repository. NAACL .
- Andrew K. Lampinen, Ishita Dasgupta, Stephanie C.Y. Chan, Kory Matthewson, Michael Henry Tessler, Antonia Creswell, James L. McClelland, Jane X. Wang, and Felix Hill. 2022. Can language models learn from explanations in context? arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02329 . · arXiv
- Yihuai Lan, Lei Wang, Qiyuan Zhang, Yunshi Lan, Bing Tian Dai, Yan Wang, Dongxiang Zhang, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2021. MWPToolkit: An open-source framework for deep learning-based math word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00799 . · arXiv
- Teven Le Scao and Alexander Rush. 2021. How many data points is a prompt worth? NAACL .
- Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. EMNLP .
- Iddo Lev, Bill MacCartney, Christopher Manning, and Roger Levy. 2004. Solving logic puzzles: From robust processing to precise semantics. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Text Meaning and Interpretation .
- Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. ACL .
- Zhengzhong Liang, Steven Bethard, and Mihai Surdeanu. 2021. Explainable multi-hop verbal reasoning through internal monologue. NAACL .
- Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. ACL . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1015 · DOI · Paper page
- Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021. Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586 . · arXiv
- Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Oana-Maria Camburu, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Julian McAuley. 2021. Rationale-inspired natural language explanations with commonsense. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13876 . · arXiv
- Ana Marasovi´ c, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Matthew E Peters. 2022. Few-shot self-rationalization with natural language prompts. NAACL Findings .
- Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In ACL .
- Shen Yun Miao, Chao Chun Liang, and Keh Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing English math word problem solvers. ACL .
- Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837 . · arXiv
- Sharan Narang, Colin Raffel, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Noah Fiedel, and Karishma Malkan. 2020. WT5?! Training text-to-text models to explain their predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14546 . · arXiv
- Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. 2021. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114 . · arXiv
- Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155 . · arXiv
- Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? NAACL .
- Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. NAACL .
- Xinyu Pi, Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Yan Gao, Qiang Fu, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Reasoning like program executors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11473 . · arXiv
- Piotr Pi˛ ekos, Mateusz Malinowski, and Henryk Michalewski. 2021. Measuring and improving BERT's mathematical abilities by predicting the order of reasoning. ACL .
- Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training Gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446 . · arXiv
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 21:1-67.
- Dheeraj Rajagopal, Vidhisha Balachandran, Eduard H. Hovy, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. SelfExplain: A self-explaining architecture for neural text classifiers. EMNLP .
- Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain yourself! Leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. ACL .
- Qiu Ran, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2019. NumNet: Machine reading comprehension with numerical reasoning. EMNLP .
- Hannah Rashkin, Vitaly Nikolaev, Matthew Lamm, Michael Collins, Dipanjan Das, Slav Petrov, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Iulia Turc, and David Reitter. 2021. Measuring attribution in natural language generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.12870 . · arXiv
- Gabriel Recchia. 2021. Teaching autoregressive language models complex tasks by demonstration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02102 . · arXiv
- Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2022. A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models. ACL .
- Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. 2021. Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems .
- Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. EMNLP .
- Subhro Roy, Tim Vieira, and Dan Roth. 2015. Reasoning about Quantities in Natural Language. TACL .
- Mohammed Saeed, Naser Ahmadi, Preslav Nakov, and Paolo Papotti. 2021. RuleBERT: Teaching soft rules to pre-trained language models. EMNLP .
- Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. ICLR .
- Jianhao Shen, Yichun Yin, Lin Li, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Ming Zhang, and Qun Liu. 2021. Generate & rank: A multi-task framework for math word problems. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 .
- Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. NAACL .
- Alon Talmor, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Leap-ofthought: Teaching pre-trained models to systematically reason over implicit knowledge. NeurIPS .
- Alon Talmor, Ori Yoran, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yoav Goldberg, Yejin Choi, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. CommonsenseQA 2.0: Exposing the limits of ai through gamification. NeurIPS Track on Datasets and Benchmarks .
- Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131 . · arXiv
- Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. LaMDA: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239 . · arXiv
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 . · arXiv
- Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on 1,600+ language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705 . · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. ICLR .
- Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022b. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research .
- Sarah Wiegreffe, Jack Hessel, Swabha Swayamdipta, Mark Riedl, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Reframing human-AI collaboration for generating free-text explanations. NAACL .
- Sarah Wiegreffe and Ana Marasovi´ c. 2021. Teach me to explain: A review of datasets for explainable NLP. NeurIPS .
- Sarah Wiegreffe, Ana Marasovi´ c, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Measuring association between labels and free-text rationales. EMNLP .
- Tongshuang Wu, Ellen Jiang, Aaron Donsbach, Jeff Gray, Alejandra Molina, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2022a. PromptChainer: Chaining large language model prompts through visual programming. CHI Extended Abstracts .
- Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022b. AI chains: Transparent and controllable human-AI interaction by chaining large language model prompts. CHI . https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3517582 · DOI
- Yujun Yan, Kevin Swersky, Danai Koutra, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, and Milad Hashemi. 2020. Neural execution engines: Learning to execute subroutines. NeurIPS .
- Huihan Yao, Ying Chen, Qinyuan Ye, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2021. Refining language models with compositional explanations. NeurIPS .
- Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03401 . · arXiv
- Yordan Yordanov, Vid Kocijan, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Oana-Maria Camburu. 2021. Few-shot out-of-domain transfer learning of natural language explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06204 . · arXiv
- Omar Zaidan, Jason Eisner, and Christine Piatko. 2007. Using 'annotator rationales' to improve machine learning for text categorization. NAACL .
- Wojciech Zaremba and Ilya Sutskever. 2014. Learning to execute. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.4615 . · arXiv
- Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. STaR: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14465 . · arXiv
- Tony Z. Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. ICML .
- Wangchunshu Zhou, Jinyi Hu, Hanlin Zhang, Xiaodan Liang, Maosong Sun, Chenyan Xiong, and Jian Tang. 2020. Towards interpretable natural language understanding with explanations as latent variables. NeurIPS .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Self-citationPaLM: 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 · see citing works
“In Section 6.3, we empirically demonstrated how chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b) can drastically improve prediction accuracy in multi-step reasoning tasks.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationHuang, 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 2,142 · see citing works
Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior
Park, J. S., O'Brien, J., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 · Cited by 2,187 · see citing works
A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models
Naveed, H., Khan, A. U., Qiu, S., Saqib, M., Anwar, S., Usman, M., Akhtar, N., Barnes, N., & Mian, A. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3744746 · Cited by 1,257 · see citing works
Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models
Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T. L., Cao, Y., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.10601 · Cited by 1,158 · see citing works
Walter, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00448-3 · Cited by 1,113 · see citing works
“Hence, the addendum “Take a deep breath and do it step-by-step” has become a popular addendum to any prompt (Wei et al., 2023).”
Autonomous chemical research with large language models
Boiko, D. A., MacKnight, R., Kline, B., & Gomes, G. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models
Singhal, K., Tu, T., Gottweis, J., Sayres, R., Wulczyn, E., Amin, M., Hou, L., Clark, K., Pfohl, S. R., Cole-Lewis, H., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03423-7 · Cited by 1,734 · see citing works
Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review
Hou, X., Zhao, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Z., Wang, K., Li, L., Luo, X., Lo, D., Grundy, J., & Wang, H. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3695988 · Cited by 1,029 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
“In an effort to address this shortcoming, Wei et al. (2022) have proposed chain-of-thought prompting , where a language model is prompted to generate a series of short sentences that mimic the reasoning process a person might employ in solving a task.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationG-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human Alignment
Liu, Y., Iter, D., Xu, Y., Wang, S., Xu, R., & Zhu, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153 · Cited by 948 · see citing works
How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09009 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools
M. Bran, A., Cox, S., Schilter, O., Baldassari, C., White, A. D., & Schwaller, P. (2024) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8 · Cited by 794 · see citing works
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) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2019 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?
Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.12837 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
Algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare
Chen, R. J., Wang, J. J., Williamson, D. F. K., Chen, T. Y., Lipkova, J., Lu, M. Y., Sahai, S., & Mahmood, F. (2023) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-023-01056-8 · Cited by 750 · see citing works
Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making
Hager, P., Jungmann, F., Holland, R., Bhagat, K., Hubrecht, I., Knauer, M., Vielhauer, J., Makowski, M., Braren, R., Kaissis, G., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03097-1 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
“Given these constraints, we calculate and use the per-class accuracy throughout our work, which is the only metric that can be calculated without bias as it only requires the samples of a single class.”
Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?
Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.759 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
“Since the first version of our paper, Madaan and Yazdanbakhsh (2022) conducted a similar analysis with the chain of thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b) which generates a rationale to perform complex tasks such as math problems.”
BackgroundInfluentialBang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., et al. (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.45 · Cited by 682 · see citing works
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Gallegos, I. O., Rossi, R. A., Barrow, J., Tanjim, M. M., Kim, S., Dernoncourt, F., Yu, T., Zhang, R., & Ahmed, N. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00524 · Cited by 665 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationExplainability for Large Language Models: A Survey
Zhao, H., Chen, H., Yang, F., Liu, N., Deng, H., Cai, H., Wang, S., Yin, D., & Du, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3639372 · Cited by 681 · see citing works
Intern VL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Tasks
Chen, Z., Wu, J., Wang, W., Su, W., Chen, G., Xing, S., Zhong, M., Zhang, Q., Zhu, X., Lu, L., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02283 · Cited by 734 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationGraph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models
Besta, M., Blach, N., Kubicek, A., Gerstenberger, R., Podstawski, M., Gianinazzi, L., Gajda, J., Lehmann, T., Niewiadomski, H., Nyczyk, P., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29720 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
“Chain-of-thought is a widely used technique to improve LLM’s reasoning capability [39].”
MethodActive Retrieval Augmented Generation
Jiang, Z., Xu, F., Gao, L., Sun, Z., Liu, Q., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Yang, Y., Callan, J., & Neubig, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 · Cited by 497 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization
Tang, L., Sun, Z., Idnay, B., Nestor, J. G., Soroush, A., Elias, P. A., Xu, Z., Ding, Y., Durrett, G., Rousseau, J. F., et al. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00896-7 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
A survey on LLM-based multi-agent systems: Workflow, infrastructure, and challenges
Li, X., Wang, S., Zeng, S., Wu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2024) · Vicinagearth · doi:10.1007/s44336-024-00009-2 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
“…external knowledge bases to enhance information accuracy [143, 238], increasing model transparency to foster understanding of decision processes [86, 202, 203], developing fact-checking systems to verify outputs [200, 201], and designing hallucination detection tasks [325, 326] to evaluate and…”
InfluentialChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
“The iterative self-reflective procedure outlined in this study works, and it has strong theoretical underpinnings [22,51,53,59] that can explain why it works.”
RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
Peng, B., Alcaide, E., Anthony, Q., Albalak, A., Arcadinho, S., Biderman, S., Cao, H., Cheng, X., Chung, M., Derczynski, L., et al. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.936 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Large language models in health care: Development, applications, and challenges
Yang, R., Tan, T. F., Lu, W., Thirunavukarasu, A. J., Ting, D. S. W., & Liu, N. (2023) · Health Care Science · doi:10.1002/hcs2.61 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
Talking about Large Language Models
Shanahan, M. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3624724 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
A framework to assess clinical safety and hallucination rates of LLMs for medical text summarisation
Asgari, E., Montaña-Brown, N., Dubois, M., Khalil, S., Balloch, J., Yeung, J. A., & Pimenta, D. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01670-7 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities
Chen, J., Liu, Z., Huang, X., Wu, C., Liu, Q., Jiang, G., Pu, Y., Lei, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., et al. (2024) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-024-01276-1 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Self-citationOpportunities and Challenges for ChatGPT and Large Language Models in Biomedicine and Health
Tian, S., Jin, Q., Yeganova, L., Lai, P.-T., Zhu, Q., Chen, X., Yang, Y., Chen, Q., Kim, W., Comeau, D. C., et al. (2023) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbad493 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10509 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
The debate over understanding in AI’s large language models
Mitchell, M., & Krakauer, D. C. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2215907120 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records
Wornow, M., Xu, Y., Thapa, R., Patel, B., Steinberg, E., Fleming, S., Pfeffer, M. A., Fries, J., & Shah, N. H. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00879-8 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
“This enables a two-way conversation between humans and machine, and allows for the decomposition of problems into smaller steps via techniques such as “ chain-of-thought ” prompting 54 .”
MethodA Survey on Multimodal Large Language Models for Autonomous Driving
Cui, C., Ma, Y., Cao, X., Ye, W., Zhou, Y., Liang, K., Chen, J., Lu, J., Yang, Z., Liao, K.-D., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) · doi:10.1109/wacvw60836.2024.00106 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
Mallen, A., Asai, A., Zhong, V., Das, R., Khashabi, D., & Hajishirzi, 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.546 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Hsieh, C.-Y., Li, C.-L., Yeh, C.-K., Nakhost, H., Fujii, Y., Ratner, A., Krishna, R., Lee, C.-Y., & Pfister, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.507 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Deng, Y., Xia, C. S., Peng, H., Yang, C., & Zhang, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3597926.3598067 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents
Gao, S., Fang, A., Huang, Y., Giunchiglia, V., Noori, A., Schwarz, J. R., Ektefaie, Y., Kondic, J., & Zitnik, M. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.09.022 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
“20 CoT prompting led to substantial improvements on many reasoning-intensive tasks, 20–23 allowing us to bridge the gap with human-level performances for most of the hard BIG-bench tasks.”
BackgroundMeasuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models
Press, O., Zhang, M., Min, S., Schmidt, L., Smith, N. A., & Lewis, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03350 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models
Li, J., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.397 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Generative AI for economic research: use cases and implications for economists
Korinek, A. (2023) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20231736 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
A critical assessment of using ChatGPT for extracting structured data from clinical notes
Huang, J., Yang, D. M., Rong, R., Nezafati, K., Treager, C., Chi, Z., Wang, S., Cheng, X., Guo, Y., Klesse, L. J., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01079-8 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
“This approachhas become a dominant method for using LLMs in real-world problem-solving 24 – 26 .”
Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Berman, E., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11366 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models
Ferrara, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03738 · Cited by 282
Mental-LLM: Leveraging Large Language Models for Mental Health Prediction via Online Text Data
Xu, X., Yao, B., Dong, Y., Gabriel, S., Yu, H., Hendler, J., Ghassemi, M., Dey, A. K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3643540 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationSavage, T., Nayak, A., Gallo, R., Rangan, E., & Chen, J. H. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01010-1 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Towards Human-Centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
Rong, Y., Leemann, T., Nguyen, T.-T., Fiedler, L., Qian, P., Unhelkar, V., Seidel, T., Kasneci, G., & Kasneci, E. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3331846 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
Assessing GPT-4 for cell type annotation in single-cell RNA-seq analysis
Hou, W., & Ji, Z. (2024) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02235-4 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Self-collaboration code generation via ChatGPT
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3672459 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
“Recent studies have shown that well-designed prompting methods, such as chain-of-thought prompting (CoT) [Wei et al., 2022] and zero-shot CoT [Kojima et al.”
Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models
Press, O., Zhang, M., Min, S., Schmidt, L., Smith, N., & Lewis, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.378 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
A 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 · see citing works
Should ChatGPT be biased? Challenges and risks of bias in large language models
Ferrara, E. (2023) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v28i11.13346 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Matching patients to clinical trials with large language models
Jin, Q., Wang, Z., Floudas, C. S., Chen, F., Gong, C., Bracken-Clarke, D., Xue, E., Yang, Y., Sun, J., & Lu, Z. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53081-z · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Evaluating Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic HCI Research Data: a Case Study
Hämäläinen, P., Tavast, M., & Kunnari, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580688 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2026) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
“Furthermore, while recent agent frameworks adopt reasoning heuristics like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [163,193] and ReAct [136] to simulate deliberative processes, these approaches remain shallow in semantic comprehension.”
Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them
Suzgun, M., Scales, N., Schärli, N., Gehrmann, S., Tay, Y., Chung, H. W., Chowdhery, A., Le, Q., Chi, E., Zhou, D., et al. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.824 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Can Recommender Systems Benefit from Large Language Models: A Survey
Lin, J., Dai, X., Xi, Y., Liu, W., Chen, B., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Wu, C., Li, X., Zhu, C., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3678004 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., & Kosinski, M. (2023) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00527-x · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Mirowski, P., Mathewson, K. W., Pittman, J., & Evans, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581225 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Design Principles for Generative AI Applications
Weisz, J. D., He, J., Muller, M., Hoefer, G., Miles, R., & Geyer, W. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642466 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Visual Programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training
Gupta, T., & Kembhavi, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01436 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationSelf-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 219 · see citing works
AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models
Zhong, W., Cui, R., Guo, Y., Liang, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Saied, A., Chen, W., & Duan, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06364 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting (Wei et al., 2022) enables large language models to break down a complex question to a series of decomposed reasoning steps.”
AI agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and future pathways
Deng, Z., Guo, Y., Han, C., Ma, W., Xiong, J., Wen, S., & Xiang, Y. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3716628 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Educational Strategies for Clinical Supervision of Artificial Intelligence Use
Abdulnour, R.-E. E., Gin, B., & Boscardin, C. K. (2025) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra2503232 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Revisiting Relation Extraction in the era of Large Language Models
Wadhwa, S., Amir, S., & Wallace, B. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.868 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Large 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 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluation
Hendy, A., Abdelrehim, M., Sharaf, A., Raunak, V., Gabr, M., Matsushita, H., Kim, Y. J., Afify, M., & Awadalla, H. H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.09210 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation With Large Language Models
Strobelt, H., Webson, A., Sanh, V., Hoover, B., Beyer, J., Pfister, H., & Rush, A. M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209479 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models (LLMs)in Learning on Graphs
Chen, Z., Mao, H., Li, H., Jin, W., Wen, H., Wei, X., Wang, S., Yin, D., Fan, W., Liu, H., et al. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3655103.3655110 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Language models generalize beyond natural proteins
Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Du, Y., Wicky, B. I. M., Milles, L. F., Dauparas, J., Baker, D., Ovchinnikov, S., Sercu, T., & Rives, A. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.21.521521 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
A generalist medical language model for disease diagnosis assistance
Liu, X., Liu, H., Yang, G., Jiang, Z., Cui, S., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Tao, L., Sun, Y., Song, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03416-6 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Terwiesch, C., Meincke, L., Girotra, K., Mollick, E. R., Nave, G., & Ulrich, K. T. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4526071 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Large Language Models and the Reverse Turing Test
Sejnowski, T. J. (2023) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco_a_01563 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
“Are we intelligent enough to judge intelligence (de Waal, 2016)?”
BackgroundNext-generation agentic AI for transforming healthcare
Karunanayake, N. (2025) · Informatics and Health · doi:10.1016/j.infoh.2025.03.001 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Applying large language models and chain-of-thought for automatic scoring
Lee, G.-G., Latif, E., Wu, X., Liu, N., & Zhai, X. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100213 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Ferber, D., El Nahhas, O. S. M., Wölflein, G., Wiest, I. C., Clusmann, J., Leßmann, M.-E., Foersch, S., Lammert, J., Tschochohei, M., Jäger, D., et al. (2025) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-025-00991-6 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Language Is Not All You Need: Aligning Perception with Language Models
Huang, S., Dong, L., Wang, W., Hao, Y., Singhal, S., Ma, S., Lv, T., Cui, L., Mohammed, O. K., Patra, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.14045 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Self-Planning Code Generation with Large Language Models
Jiang, X., Dong, Y., Wang, L., Fang, Z., Shang, Q., Li, G., Jin, Z., & Jiao, W. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3672456 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Towards Interpretable Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models
Yang, K., Ji, S., Zhang, T., Xie, Q., Kuang, Z., & Ananiadou, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.370 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Holderried, F., Stegemann-Philipps, C., Herrmann-Werner, A., Festl-Wietek, T., Holderried, M., Eickhoff, C., & Mahling, M. (2024) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/59213 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
A medical multimodal large language model for future pandemics
Liu, F., Zhu, T., Wu, X., Yang, B., You, C., Wang, C., Lu, L., Liu, Z., Zheng, Y., Sun, X., et al. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00952-2 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning theories for artificial intelligence promoting learning processes
Gibson, D., Kovanovic, V., Ifenthaler, D., Dexter, S., & Feng, S. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13341 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4221143046
- Cited by
- 4,263
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 212 · 2025: 1547 · 2024: 1537 · 2023: 900 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- large language models, prompt engineering, AI alignment, failure modes
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
