The DOI matches its DataCite record; 52 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 6 are not checked yet.
Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context
Open accessAbstract
Large language models have achieved impressive performance on various natural language processing tasks. However, so far they have been evaluated primarily on benchmarks where all information in the input context is relevant for solving the task. In this work, we investigate the distractibility of large language models, i.e., how the model problem-solving accuracy can be influenced by irrelevant context. In particular, we introduce Grade-School Math with Irrelevant Context (GSM-IC), an arithmetic reasoning dataset with irrelevant information in the problem description. We use this benchmark to measure the distractibility of cutting-edge prompting techniques for large language models, and find that the model performance is dramatically decreased when irrelevant information is included. We also identify several approaches for mitigating this deficiency, such as decoding with self-consistency and adding to the prompt an instruction that tells the language model to ignore the irrelevant information.
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
“By disclosing task intent at the input side and relying on surface-form matching at the output side, the evaluation increasingly reflects models' adaptation to task prompts and generation styles rather than their ability to retain and apply conversational context.”
From Locomo-Plus: Beyond-Factual Cognitive Memory Evaluation Framework for LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
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
“Longer prompts introduce irrelevant and redundant information, which can weaken LLMs' performance (Shi et al., 2023), as illustrated in Figure 1a.”
From LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
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
“However, indiscriminately retrieving and incorporating a fixed number of retrieved passages, regardless of whether retrieval is necessary, or passages are relevant, diminishes LM versatility or can lead to unhelpful response generation.”
From CareerX: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Personalized AI-Driven Career Guidance (2023) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
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
“Prompting approaches can reduce the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations and stereotypes (Shaikh et al., 2022;Ganguli et al., 2023;Shi et al., 2023), which our findings on prompting for debiasing corroborate.”
From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
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
“Existing agents struggle with the capability to perform self-reflection [69, 41]. That is to say they tend to take all information/feedback and do not know how to filter out or correct irrelevant, incorrect, or misleading information [84, 107].”
From Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [84]
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
“most LLM evaluation work selects a prompt x, run the model once, and interprets the resulting output y as the model's behavior under that prompt (Shi et al., 2023;Zhu et al., 2024;Cao et al., 2024).”
From Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
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
“Small changes in input tokens can drastically alter model outputs, indicating a strong token bias and suggesting that these models are highly sensitive and fragile (Jiang et al., 2024; Shi et al., 2023).”
From GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Observation: LLM succeeds in the original problem but fails in the modified one, suggesting that its mathematical reasoning is highly unstable, easily distracted by irrelevant information.”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent empirical experiments have shown that LLM performance decreases with less effective information in a prompt (Bai et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023a; Shi et al., 2023).”
From LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“as incorporating irrelevant context can distract the LLM and degrade response quality (Liu et al., 2024b; Shi et al., 2023).”
From In Prospect and Retrospect: Reflective Memory Management for Long-term Personalized Dialogue Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“as incorporating irrelevant context can distract the LLM and degrade response quality (Liu et al., 2024b; Shi et al., 2023).”
From In Prospect and Retrospect: Reflective Memory Management for Long-term Personalized Dialogue Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Robustness benchmarks systematically perturb prompts via paraphrasing, rephrasing, or adversarial noise injection (Zhu et al., 2024;Shi et al., 2023;Cao et al., 2024), reporting dramatic performance swings despite the underlying task remaining unchanged.”
From Within-Model vs Between-Prompt Variability in Large Language Models for Creative Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“GSM-IC (Shi et al., 2023) shows that irrelevant context can impair LLM performance, focusing on prompting techniques.”
From GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We find that the alignment with human data is better without the full paper context (likely due to the phenomenon that LLMs are easily distracted by too much irrelevant context (Shi et al., 2023)), except for Verifiability , which could benefit from additional context.”
From The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors (2025) · cites this paper as Shi et al., 2023
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
Language 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 2×
“Prompting large language models performs decently well in a variety of domains (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022, inter alia ).”
BackgroundMethodExploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · cited 2×
“In particular, Li et al. (2022) evaluated T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowd-hery et al., 2022) with few-shot prompts, and proposed knowledge-aware finetuning that finetunes the model on problems with counterfactual and irrelevant context, which strengthens the model robustness to noisy context.”
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 · cited 5×
“Chain-of-thought prompting (C O T; Wei et al., 2022) is a prompting technique that guides the language models to solve a problem in a step-by-step manner.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationTraining language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117 · cited 3×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
BackgroundMethodPaLM: 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 · cited 9×
“Prompting large language models performs decently well in a variety of domains (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022, inter alia ).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationLarge language models are zero-shot reasoners
Kojima, T., Gu, S. (., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1613 · Cited by 2,013 · cited 6×
“C O T; Kojima et al., 2022) is a variation of C O T where the prompt does not contain any exemplar.”
BackgroundInfluentialScaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models
Chung, H. W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y., Fedus, W., Li, Y., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 · Cited by 1,441 · cited 1×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
BackgroundSelf-citationAdversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systems
Jia, R., & Liang, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1215 · Cited by 1,410 · cited 2×
“…input perturbations for natural language tasks, including model-agnostic input transformations (Liang et al., 2022; Ravichan-der et al., 2022, inter alia ) and adversarial example generation against individual models (Jia & Liang, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodFinetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners
Wei, J., Bosma, M., Zhao, V. Y., Guu, K., Yu, A. W., Lester, B., Du, N., Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.01652 · Cited by 1,101 · cited 1×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
BackgroundDecomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex TasksPreprint
Khot, T., Trivedi, H., Finlayson, M., Fu, Y., Richardson, K., Clark, P., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.02406 · Cited by 852 · cited 2×
“…al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022, inter alia ), generating programs (Austin et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al.,…”
BackgroundSelf-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 · cited 8×
“This means that in addition to improving model performance on clean arithmetic reasoning tasks (Wang et al., 2022c), SC also substantially reduces the distractibility of large language models to irrelevant context.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationTextAttack: A Framework for Adversarial Attacks, Data Augmentation, and Adversarial Training in NLP
Morris, J. X., Lifland, E., Yoo, J. Y., Grigsby, J., Jin, D., & Qi, Y. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.16 · Cited by 772 · cited 1×
“…input perturbations for natural language tasks, including model-agnostic input transformations (Liang et al., 2022; Ravichan-der et al., 2022, inter alia ) and adversarial example generation against individual models (Jia & Liang, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).”
MethodRethinking 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 · cited 2×
“A line of work studies the model performance with incorrect prompting ex-emplars, i.e., the example problems are paired with wrong answers (Min et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022).”
BackgroundTowards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Tasks
Weston, J., Bordes, A., Chopra, S., Rush, A. M., van Merriënboer, B., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.05698 · Cited by 670 · cited 1×
“There exist some logical reasoning benchmarks that contain irrelevant content in task descriptions (Weston et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022; Tafjord et al., 2020, inter alia ).”
BackgroundMultitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization
Sanh, V., Webson, A., Raffel, C., Bach, S. H., Sutawika, L., Alyafeai, Z., Chaffin, A., Stiegler, A., Scao, T. L., Raja, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.08207 · Cited by 612 · cited 2×
“In addition to demonstrating how to handle irrelevant information via exemplars, we also investigate the usage of task-specific instructions (Wei et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2021; Ouyang et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022), where we prepend an instruction sentence “feel free to ignore irrelevant info…”
BackgroundTraining Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems
Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14168 · Cited by 575 · cited 6×
“, how is large language model prompting affected by irrelevant context, and what strategies can be used to improve performance? To measure distractibility, we construct the GSM-IC dataset, a grade-school math problem dataset derived from GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) and introduce two different metrics.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHolistic Evaluation of Language Models
Bommasani, R., Liang, P., & Lee, T. (2023) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15007 · Cited by 480 · cited 2×
“Meanwhile, Liang et al. (2022) evaluate various large language models under several metrics, including accuracy, robustness, fairness, etc. Specifically, the input transformations in their robustness evaluation include semantics-preserving and semantics-altering perturbations, such as injecting…”
BackgroundTowards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What MattersPreprint
Wang, B., Min, S., Deng, X., Shen, J., Wu, Y., Zettlemoyer, L., & Sun, H. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10001 · Cited by 428 · cited 8×
“This means that in addition to improving model performance on clean arithmetic reasoning tasks (Wang et al., 2022c), SC also substantially reduces the distractibility of large language models to irrelevant context.”
BackgroundInfluentialDROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs
Dua, D., Wang, Y., Dasigi, P., Stanovsky, G., Singh, S., & Gardner, M. (2019) · 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) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1246 · Cited by 393 · cited 2×
“In addition to GSM-IC, we extend our evaluation to the DROP dataset (Dua et al., 2019), where the task is to answer a question according to a long passage that naturally contains irrelevant context.”
BackgroundMethodProgram Synthesis with Large Language Models
Austin, J., Odena, A., Nye, M., Bosma, M., Michalewski, H., Dohan, D., Jiang, E., Cai, C., Terry, M., Le, Q., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07732 · Cited by 388 · cited 3×
“…decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022, inter alia ), generating programs (Austin et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022, inter alia ), marginalizing intermediate steps that share the same…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationLeast-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models
Zhou, D., Schärli, N., Hou, L., Wei, J., Scales, N., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Cui, C., Bousquet, O., Le, Q., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.10625 · Cited by 380
Self-citationSelection-Inference: Exploiting Large Language Models for Interpretable Logical ReasoningPreprint
Creswell, A., Shanahan, M., & Higgins, I. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.09712 · Cited by 338 · cited 2×
“However, previous work largely focuses on designing models that require extra training, and prompting alone still hardly achieves the same level of performance as finetuned models for these tasks (Han et al., 2022; Creswell et al., 2022).”
BackgroundProgram Induction by Rationale Generation: Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems
Ling, W., Yogatama, D., Dyer, C., & Blunsom, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1015 · Cited by 325 · cited 1×
“…et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022, inter alia ) has been signifi-cantly boosted with various techniques, including generating intermediate steps (Ling et al., 2017; Cobbe et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem…”
MethodAre NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems?
Patel, A., Bhattamishra, S., & Goyal, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.168 · Cited by 307 · cited 5×
“The same holds for SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021), an arithmetic reasoning benchmark constructed by applying different types of variations to math problems from existing clean datasets, e.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialNegated and Misprimed Probes for Pretrained Language Models: Birds Can Talk, But Cannot Fly
Kassner, N., & Schütze, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.698 · Cited by 303 · cited 1×
“Similar issues have been found for general-purpose pretrained language models, on the tasks of factual reasoning (Kassner & Sch¨utze, 2020; Pandia & Ettinger, 2021; Misra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), code generation (Jones & Steinhardt, 2022), and syntactic generalization (Chaves & Richter,…”
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 · cited 2×
“…al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022, inter alia ), generating programs (Austin et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022, inter alia…”
BackgroundWorking memory and intrusions of irrelevant information in a group of specific poor problem solvers
Passolunghi, M. C., Cornoldi, C., & Liberto, S. D. (1999) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03198531 · Cited by 251 · cited 1×
“Studies in psychology have shown that irrelevant information may significantly decrease some children and even adults problem-solving accuracy (Hoyer et al., 1979; Pasolunghi et al., 1999; Marzocchi et al., 2002, inter alia ).”
BackgroundLarge Language Models with Controllable Working MemoryPreprint
Li, D., Rawat, A., Zaheer, M., et al. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.05110 · Cited by 236 · cited 5×
“While prior work has shown that training and fine-tuning with different types of problems improves model robustness (Li et al., 2022), our results show that prompting with exem-plars that demonstrate how to ignore irrelevant context also results in significant robustness improvement.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDo Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of Their Prompts?
Webson, A., & Pavlick, E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.167 · Cited by 203 · cited 1×
“In addition, prior work has investigated the model sensitivity to other parts of the prompt, such as instruction tuning with misleading and irrelevant instructions (Webson & Pavlick, 2021) and wrong reasoning steps in the examples (Madaan & Yaz-danbakhsh, 2022; Wang et al., 2022a).”
BackgroundTransformers as Soft Reasoners over Language
Clark, P., Tafjord, O., & Richardson, K. (2020) · Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/537 · Cited by 176 · cited 1×
“There exist some logical reasoning benchmarks that contain irrelevant content in task descriptions (Weston et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022; Tafjord et al., 2020, inter alia ).”
BackgroundPAL: 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 · cited 3×
“Following prior work on solving GSM8K problems with code (Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), we include a Python program as the problem solution in the prompt, and execute the generated Python code using an external Python interpreter to obtain the final answer.”
MethodResultShow Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models
Nye, M., Andreassen, A. J., Gur-Ari, G., Michalewski, H., Austin, J., Bieber, D., Dohan, D., Lewkowycz, A., Bosma, M., Luan, D., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.00114 · Cited by 144 · cited 1×
“…inter alia ) has been signifi-cantly boosted with various techniques, including generating intermediate steps (Ling et al., 2017; Cobbe et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al.,…”
MethodSelf-citationRationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V., Ed, H., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.00747 · Cited by 131 · cited 8×
“This means that in addition to improving model performance on clean arithmetic reasoning tasks (Wang et al., 2022c), SC also substantially reduces the distractibility of large language models to irrelevant context.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationChen, W., Ma, X., Wang, X., & Cohen, W. W. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.12588 · Cited by 125 · cited 3×
“Following prior work on solving GSM8K problems with code (Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), we include a Python program as the problem solution in the prompt, and execute the generated Python code using an external Python interpreter to obtain the final answer.”
BackgroundMethodProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language
Tafjord, O., Dalvi, B., & Clark, P. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.317 · Cited by 122 · cited 1×
“There exist some logical reasoning benchmarks that contain irrelevant content in task descriptions (Weston et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022; Tafjord et al., 2020, inter alia ).”
BackgroundCLUTRR: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Inductive Reasoning from Text
Sinha, K., Sodhani, S., Dong, J., Pineau, J., & Hamilton, W. L. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1458 · Cited by 110 · cited 1×
“There exist some logical reasoning benchmarks that contain irrelevant content in task descriptions (Weston et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022; Tafjord et al., 2020, inter alia ).”
BackgroundCompositional Semantic Parsing with Large Language ModelsPreprint
Drozdov, A., Schärli, N., Akyürek, E., Scales, N., Song, X., Chen, X., Bousquet, O., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.15003 · Cited by 95 · cited 3×
“…et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022, inter alia ), generating programs (Austin et al., 2021; Chowdhery…”
BackgroundSelf-citationAdversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models
Wang, B., Xu, C., Wang, S., Gan, Z., Cheng, Y., Gao, J., Awadallah, A. H., & Li, B. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.02840 · Cited by 88 · cited 2×
“…input perturbations for natural language tasks, including model-agnostic input transformations (Liang et al., 2022; Ravichan-der et al., 2022, inter alia ) and adversarial example generation against individual models (Jia & Liang, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodMarzocchi, G. M., Lucangeli, D., De Meo, T., Fini, F., & Cornoldi, C. (2002) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2101_4 · Cited by 86 · cited 1×
“Studies in psychology have shown that irrelevant information may significantly decrease some children and even adults problem-solving accuracy (Hoyer et al., 1979; Pasolunghi et al., 1999; Marzocchi et al., 2002, inter alia ).”
BackgroundEffects of varying irrelevant information on adult age differences in problem solving.
Hoyer, W., Rebok, G., & Sved, S. (1979) · Journal of Gerontology · doi:10.1093/geronj/34.4.553 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“Studies in psychology have shown that irrelevant information may significantly decrease some children and even adults problem-solving accuracy (Hoyer et al., 1979; Pasolunghi et al., 1999; Marzocchi et al., 2002, inter alia ).”
BackgroundLanguage Models are Multilingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoners
Shi, F., Suzgun, M., Freitag, M., Wang, X., Srivats, S., Vosoughi, S., Chung, H. W., Tay, Y., Ruder, S., Zhou, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03057 · Cited by 60 · cited 5×
“…techniques, including generating intermediate steps (Ling et al., 2017; Cobbe et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationCONDAQA: A Contrastive Reading Comprehension Dataset for Reasoning about Negation
Ravichander, A., Gardner, M., & Marasović, A. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.00295 · Cited by 55
Natural Language to Code Translation with Execution
Shi, F., Fried, D., Ghazvininejad, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Wang, S. I. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.11454 · Cited by 49 · cited 4×
“Self-consistency (SC; Wang et al., 2022c; Shi et al., 2022a) may further boost the reasoning performance by marginal-izing over intermediate reasoning steps that share the same final result.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationCapturing 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 · cited 1×
“…issues have been found for general-purpose pretrained language models, on the tasks of factual reasoning (Kassner & Sch¨utze, 2020; Pandia & Ettinger, 2021; Misra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), code generation (Jones & Steinhardt, 2022), and syntactic generalization (Chaves & Richter, 2021).”
BackgroundChallenging 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. V., Chi, E. H., Zhou, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.09261 · Cited by 44 · cited 3×
“…boosted with various techniques, including generating intermediate steps (Ling et al., 2017; Cobbe et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationLearning What is Essential in Questions
Khashabi, D., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., & Roth, D. (2017) · Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1010 · Cited by 43 · cited 1×
“Jia & Liang (2017) have shown that neural question answering systems are largely affected by adversarial distracting sentences, whereas follow up work (Khashabi et al., 2017; Ni et al., 2019) proposes learning strategies that mitigate the problem.”
BackgroundPandia, L., & Ettinger, A. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.119 · Cited by 35 · cited 1×
“Similar issues have been found for general-purpose pretrained language models, on the tasks of factual reasoning (Kassner & Sch¨utze, 2020; Pandia & Ettinger, 2021; Misra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), code generation (Jones & Steinhardt, 2022), and syntactic generalization (Chaves & Richter,…”
BackgroundFOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic
Han, S., Schoelkopf, H., Zhao, Y., Qi, Z., Riddell, M., Zhou, W., Coady, J., Peng, D., Qiao, Y., Benson, L., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.00840 · Cited by 35 · cited 3×
“There exist some logical reasoning benchmarks that contain irrelevant content in task descriptions (Weston et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022; Tafjord et al., 2020, inter alia ).”
BackgroundLearning Visually-Grounded Semantics from Contrastive Adversarial SamplesPreprint
Shi, H., Mao, J., Xiao, T., Jiang, Y., & Sun, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.10348 · Cited by 32 · cited 2×
“…input perturbations for natural language tasks, including model-agnostic input transformations (Liang et al., 2022; Ravichan-der et al., 2022, inter alia ) and adversarial example generation against individual models (Jia & Liang, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationMisra, K., Rayz, J. T., & Ettinger, A. (2023) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.213 · Cited by 32 · cited 1×
“…issues have been found for general-purpose pretrained language models, on the tasks of factual reasoning (Kassner & Sch¨utze, 2020; Pandia & Ettinger, 2021; Misra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), code generation (Jones & Steinhardt, 2022), and syntactic generalization (Chaves & Richter, 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationNi, J., Zhu, C., Chen, W., & McAuley, J. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1030 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“Jia & Liang (2017) have shown that neural question answering systems are largely affected by adversarial distracting sentences, whereas follow up work (Khashabi et al., 2017; Ni et al., 2019) proposes learning strategies that mitigate the problem.”
BackgroundText and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango
Madaan, A., & Yazdanbakhsh, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.07686 · Cited by 24 · cited 1×
“In particular, Madaan & Yazdanbakhsh (2022) conclude that the correctness of numbers and equations in chain-of-thought prompts does not play a key role in model performance, but using wrong entities and removing either equations or text explanation in the reasoning steps drastically hamper the…”
BackgroundDohan, D., Xu, W., Lewkowycz, A., Austin, J., Bieber, D., Lopes, R. G., Wu, Y., Michalewski, H., Saurous, R. A., Sohl-dickstein, J., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.10342 · Cited by 22 · cited 2×
“…al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2022b, inter alia ), problem decomposition (Zhou et al., 2022; Drozdov et al., 2022; Dohan et al., 2022; Khot et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022, inter alia ), generating programs (Austin et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Gao et…”
BackgroundSelf-citationAdversarial Examples for Evaluating Math Word Problem Solvers
Kumar, V., Maheshwary, R., & Pudi, V. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.230 · Cited by 16 · cited 2×
“In contrast to prior work that derives benchmark variations by substituting sentences of the base problems with variations (Patel et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021, inter alia ), we keep the base problem description and add to it one irrelevant sentence, while making sure that it does not affect the…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMisra, K., Rayz, J., & Ettinger, A. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.01963 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“…issues have been found for general-purpose pretrained language models, on the tasks of factual reasoning (Kassner & Sch¨utze, 2020; Pandia & Ettinger, 2021; Misra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), code generation (Jones & Steinhardt, 2022), and syntactic generalization (Chaves & Richter, 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLook at that! BERT can be easily distracted from paying attention to morphosyntax
Chaves, R. P., & Richter, S. N. (2021) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/b92s-qd21 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“…issues have been found for general-purpose pretrained language models, on the tasks of factual reasoning (Kassner & Sch¨utze, 2020; Pandia & Ettinger, 2021; Misra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022), code generation (Jones & Steinhardt, 2022), and syntactic generalization (Chaves & Richter, 2021).”
BackgroundGround-Truth Labels Matter: A Deeper Look into Input-Label Demonstrations
Yoo, K. M., Kim, J., Kim, H. J., Cho, H., Jo, H., Lee, S.-W., Lee, S.-G., & Kim, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.12685 · Cited by 2 · cited 2×
“A line of work studies the model performance with incorrect prompting ex-emplars, i.e., the example problems are paired with wrong answers (Min et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces
Gu, A., & Dao, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.00752 · Cited by 1,579
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876
“The question of “when to retrieve” has led to strategies ranging from single [ Wang et al. , 2023e, Shi et al. , 2023 ] to adaptive [Jiang et al. , 2023b, Huang et al. , 2023] and multiple retrieval [Izacard et al. , 2022] methods.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEvaluation 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
“All four of the hospitalists are internal medicine physicians with emergency department experience.”
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05232 · Cited by 2,516
“Irrelevant evidence can be propagated into the generation phase, possibly tainting the output (Li et al., 2023a; Shi et al., 2023a; Cho et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023).”
Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations
Gao, T., Yen, H., Yu, J., & Chen, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.398 · Cited by 216
Metadata
- Authors
- Shi, F., Chen, X., Misra, K., Scales, N., Dohan, D., Chi, E., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D.
- Affiliations
- Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.00093
- OpenAlex
- W4319049323
- Semantic Scholar
- 3d68522abfadfc8ee6b7ec9edaaf91f1b2f38e5e
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 29
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- large language models, distractibility, arithmetic reasoning, prompting techniques, instruction following, problem-solving accuracy
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
