The DOI matches its DataCite record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teaching Algorithmic Reasoning via In-context Learning
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing in-context learning capabilities through scaling up model and data size. Despite this progress, LLMs are still unable to solve algorithmic reasoning problems. While providing a rationale with the final answer has led to further improvements in multi-step reasoning problems, Anil et al. 2022 showed that even simple algorithmic reasoning tasks such as parity are far from solved. In this work, we identify and study four key stages for successfully teaching algorithmic reasoning to LLMs: (1) formulating algorithms as skills, (2) teaching multiple skills simultaneously (skill accumulation), (3) teaching how to combine skills (skill composition) and (4) teaching how to use skills as tools. We show that it is possible to teach algorithmic reasoning to LLMs via in-context learning, which we refer to as algorithmic prompting. We evaluate our approach on a variety of arithmetic and quantitative reasoning tasks, and demonstrate significant boosts in performance over existing prompting techniques. In particular, for long parity, addition, multiplication and subtraction, we achieve an error reduction of approximately 10x, 9x, 5x and 2x respectively compared to the best available baselines.
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?
In the citing paper
“Particularly, by using demonstrations that explicitly guide the reasoning process, ICL manifests remarkable effects on tasks requiring complex reasoning (Wei et al., 2022c;Li et al., 2023b;Zhou et al., 2022) and compositional generalization (Zhou et al., 2023a).”
From A Survey on In-context Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Zhou et al., 2022
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
Scaling 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×
“Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive progress in recent years, driven by the scaling up of models and training data sizes (Kaplan et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2022a; Hoffmann et al., 2022) that has led to improved performance and sample efficiency (Brown et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021;…”
BackgroundChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07682 · Cited by 1,264
STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning
Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., & Goodman, N. D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.14465 · Cited by 182
Capturing Failures of Large Language Models Via Human Cognitive Biases
Jones, E., & Steinhardt, J. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-0856 · Cited by 48
Capturing Failures of Large Language Models via Human Cognitive Biases
Jones, E., & Steinhardt, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.12299 · Cited by 43
Thor: Wielding Hammers to Integrate Language Models and Automated Theorem Provers
Jiang, A. Q., Li, W., Tworkowski, S., Czechowski, K., Odrzygóźdź, T., Miłoś, P., Wu, Y., & Jamnik, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.10893 · Cited by 23
Cited by
A Survey on In-context Learning
Dong, Q., Li, L., Dai, D., Zheng, C., Ma, J., Li, R., Xia, H., Xu, J., Wu, Z., Chang, B., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.64 · Cited by 649
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
Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality
Dziri, N., Lu, X., Sclar, M., Li, X. (., Jiang, L., Lin, B. Y., Welleck, S., West, P., Bhagavatula, C., Bras, R. L., et al. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-3081 · Cited by 335
“For example, Nye et al. [55] and Zhou et al. [86] used scratchpads to teach transformers how to perform algorithmic reasoning tasks such as addition by splitting the task into intermediate steps [44, 80].”
BackgroundTeaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug
Chen, X., Lin, M., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.05128 · Cited by 812
“Several prompting methods have been proposed to unlock latent abilities of large language models (Wei et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2021; Kojima et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2023; Khot et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022).”
BackgroundLength Generalization in Arithmetic Transformers
Jelassi, S., d'Ascoli, S., Domingo-Enrich, C., Wu, Y., Li, Y., & Charton, F. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.15400 · Cited by 76
Shojaee, P., Mirzadeh, I., Alizadeh, K., Horton, M., Bengio, S., & Farajtabar, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.06941 · Cited by 45
Towards AI-Assisted Synthesis of Verified Dafny Methods
Misu, M. R. H., Lopes, C. V., Ma, I., & Noble, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3643763 · Cited by 38
Prompted LLMs as Chatbot Modules for Long Open-domain Conversation
Lee, G., Hartmann, V., Park, J., Papailiopoulos, D., & Lee, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04533 · Cited by 34
Prompted LLMs as Chatbot Modules for Long Open-domain Conversation
Lee, G., Hartmann, V., Park, J., Papailiopoulos, D., & Lee, K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.277 · Cited by 34
Evaluating Large Language Models on Controlled Generation Tasks
Sun, J., Tian, Y., Zhou, W., Xu, N., Hu, Q., Gupta, R., Wieting, J., Peng, N., & Ma, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.190 · Cited by 29
Testolin, A. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14020744 · Cited by 24
Beyond Accuracy: Investigating Error Types in GPT-4 Responses to USMLE Questions
Roy, S., Khatua, A., Ghoochani, F., Hadler, U., Nejdl, W., & Ganguly, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657882 · Cited by 17
What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length Generalization
Zhou, H., Bradley, A., Littwin, E., Razin, N., Saremi, O., Susskind, J., Bengio, S., & Nakkiran, P. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.16028 · Cited by 10
Self-citationLanguage models need inductive biases to count inductively
Chang, Y., & Bisk, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.20131
“It (Anil et al., 2022) or prompting (Zhou et al., 2022).”
Algorithm of Thoughts: Enhancing Exploration of Ideas in Large Language Models
Sel, B., Al-Tawaha, A., Khattar, V., Jia, R., & Jin, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.10379 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, H., Nova, A., Larochelle, H., Courville, A., Neyshabur, B., & Sedghi, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- arXiv
- 2211.09066
- References
- 7
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
