Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Open accessAbstract
Language models (LMs) exhibit remarkable abilities to solve new tasks from just a few examples or textual instructions, especially at scale. They also, paradoxically, struggle with basic functionality, such as arithmetic or factual lookup, where much simpler and smaller models excel. In this paper, we show that LMs can teach themselves to use external tools via simple APIs and achieve the best of both worlds. We introduce Toolformer, a model trained to decide which APIs to call, when to call them, what arguments to pass, and how to best incorporate the results into future token prediction. This is done in a self-supervised way, requiring nothing more than a handful of demonstrations for each API. We incorporate a range of tools, including a calculator, a Q\&A system, two different search engines, a translation system, and a calendar. Toolformer achieves substantially improved zero-shot performance across a variety of downstream tasks, often competitive with much larger models, without sacrificing its core language modeling abilities.
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?
Reinforcement learning can improve complex behavior sequences in large language models.
“These approaches demonstrate that RL can improve complex behavior sequences in LLMs.”
From Memory-R1: Enhancing Large Language Model Agents to Manage and Utilize Memories via Reinforcement Learning (2025) · cites this paper as Schick et al., 2023
The Introduction and Sampling API Calls sections describe self-supervised filtering and finetuning with a standard language-modeling objective, not reinforcement learning. The Limitations section also says Toolformer cannot use tools in a chain, contrary to presenting it as evidence of improved complex behavior sequences. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI Agents have significant theoretical and practical limitations that inhibit their reliability, generalization, and long-term autonomy.
“While AI Agents have garnered considerable attention for their ability to automate structured tasks using LLMs and interfaces to specific tools, the literature highlights significant theoretical and practical limitations that inhibit their reliability, generalization, and long-term autonomy [136,162].”
From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [162]
Section 7 (Limitations; page not provided) identifies practical limits of Toolformer, including its inability to chain or interactively use tools and its sensitivity to input wording. These support concerns about reliability and autonomy for this approach, but the paper does not establish theoretical limitations or make the same broad claim about AI agents generally and their long-term autonomy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs have inherent limitations in their enclosed reasoning, particularly when addressing complex situations that extend beyond textual boundaries.
“Despite this, LLMs have inherent limitations in their enclosed reasoning, particularly when addressing complex situations that extend beyond textual boundaries (Schick et al., 2023).”
From Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration (2024) · cites this paper as Schick et al., 2023
The Introduction says language models have inherent limitations, including difficulty accessing current information and performing precise calculations. But neither it nor the Tools section establishes the more specific claim that their reasoning is especially limited in complex situations beyond textual boundaries. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredResearch on language agent decision-making has progressed from simple action proposal to intermediate reasoning/retrieval to complex iterative proposal and evaluation.
“Empirically, many early language agents simply use LLMs to propose an action (Schick et al., 2023), a sequence of actions (Huang et al., 2022b), or evaluate a fixed set of actions (Ahn et al., 2022) without intermediate reasoning or retrieval. Followup work (Yao et al., 2022b; Shinn et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023b; Lin et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a; Park et al., 2023) has exploited intermediate”
From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Schick et al., 2023
The Introduction describes Toolformer generating API-call candidates, which supports the limited attribution that it proposes actions. But the cited sentence also places it among agents acting without intermediate retrieval; Section 4.2.3 (Question Answering) says Toolformer relied on Wikipedia search for 99.3% of its question-answering predictions. The paper therefore does not support that characterization of Toolformer. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent work has equipped dialogue agents with the ability to use tools such as calculators and calendars, and to consult external websites.
“Recent work has equipped dialogue agents with the ability to use tools such as calculators and calendars, and to consult external websites 24,25 .”
From Role play with large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Section 3, “Tools” (page unavailable), says Toolformer uses a calculator, a calendar, and Wikipedia search, supporting the tool-use portion of the claim. The paper describes a language model completing text, not specifically a dialogue agent, and its Wikipedia search uses an indexed dump rather than consulting external websites. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
LLM-based approaches may assist threat attribution by summarizing large-scale interaction logs, extracting structured event representations, or generating hypotheses about plausible attack paths.
“LLM-based approaches may assist by summarizing large-scale interaction logs, extracting structured event representations, or generating hypotheses about plausible attack paths; recent work on tool-augmented language models and automated log analysis suggests their usefulness in triage and forensic workflows (Schick et al., 2023;Solomon et al., 2026;Yao et al., 2022).”
From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Schick et al., 2023
The Introduction describes Toolformer as a language model that learns when and how to use external tools, supporting its citation as an example of tool-augmented language-model work. The paper does not address interaction-log summarization, structured security events, attack paths, threat attribution, or usefulness in triage and forensic workflows. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLM agents communicate and coordinate with one another and interface with external resources such as tools, APIs, and structured data sources.
“These agents not only communicate and coordinate with one another but also interface with external resources such as tools, APIs, and structured data sources [24, 16].”
From Collaborative Memory: Multi-User Memory Sharing in LLM Agents with Dynamic Access Control (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The Abstract and §2 (Approach) show that Toolformer uses external tools through API calls, including a search engine and question-answering system. Our copy does not describe agents communicating or coordinating with one another, and it does not establish use of structured data sources as such. The passages provided have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis separation has been shown to improve model performance on a range of logical and mathematical reasoning tasks.
“This separation has been shown to improve model performance on a range of logical and mathematical reasoning tasks (Chen et al., 2022;Gao et al., 2023;Schick et al., 2023;Wang et al., 2022;Zhou et al., 2022;Cobbe et al., 2021).”
From Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language (2024) · cites this paper as Schick et al., 2023
Section 4.2.2 (page not available) reports that Toolformer’s calculator calls more than doubled performance on three mathematical-reasoning benchmarks, supporting the mathematical part of the claim. The cited passages do not establish improved performance on logical-reasoning tasks, so the broader claim is not fully supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLaMDA, Toolformer, and Mind's Eye are examples of augmented language models.
“Notable examples of such systems include the likes of LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), Toolformer (Schick et al., 2023), and Mind's Eye (Liu et al., 2022).”
From ChatGPT, extended: large language models and the extended mind (2025) · cites this paper as Schick et al., 2023
A promising design paradigm for AI agents is to combine an LLM with tools that interact with a broader environment.
“A promising design paradigm for AI agents [65] is to combine an LLM with tools that interact with a broader environment [14, 35, 40, 47, 51, 53, 55, 69].”
From AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
Toolformer demonstrates self-supervised learning of when and how to call external APIs.
“ReAct interleaves language reasoning with environment actions [16], while Toolformer demonstrates self-supervised learning of when and how to call external APIs [17].”
From HELIX: Model-Harness Co-evolution for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Methods such as Toolformer showed that LLMs can learn to call external APIs to aid in problem-solving.
“methods such as Toolformer showed that LLMs can learn to call external APIs to aid in problem-solving [18].”
From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
Toolformer combines diverse tools within a single model, providing flexible decision-making abilities and improved generalization capabilities through a self-supervised method.
“The motivation behind Toolformer [246] aligns closely with ReAct; however, it goes a step further by combining diverse tools within a single model. This integration provides the model with flexible decision-making abilities and improved generalization capabilities, achieved through a simple yet effective self-supervised method.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [246]
Agentic AI systems inherit the modularity of AI Agents but extend their architecture to support distributed intelligence, inter-agent communication, and iterative planning.
“As discussed before, Agentic AI systems inherit the modularity of AI Agents but extend their architecture to support distributed intelligence, inter-agent communication, and iterative planning.”
From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [162]
The Abstract and Introduction describe a language model that learns when and how to call external tools. Searches for distributed intelligence, inter-agent communication, iterative planning, and agent architecture found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed distinction between AI Agents and Agentic AI systems. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAgents can implement a Tree-of-Thoughts strategy, collectively exploring different reasoning branches in parallel and exchanging information to decide on the best path forward.
“Agents can also implement a Tree-of-Thoughts strategy, collectively exploring different reasoning branches in parallel and exchanging information to decide on the best path forward [18,20].”
From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
The Introduction describes a language model choosing when to use tools, and Section 4.2 describes its zero-shot evaluation. Neither those passages nor searches for Tree-of-Thoughts, parallel reasoning branches, and agents exchanging information found a passage addressing the attributed strategy. Our copy therefore does not verify this claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEquipping an LLM with a suite of tools, such as calculators or web search, has proven superiority in tasks that require multistep reasoning and planning.
“Equipping an LLM with a suite of tools, such as calculators or web search, has proven superiority in tasks that require multistep reasoning and planning17,18.”
From Development and validation of an autonomous artificial intelligence agent for clinical decision-making in oncology (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
Toolformer employs a training approach to determine optimal usage of specific APIs and integrates results into subsequent token predictions.
“Toolformer employs a training approach to determine the optimal usage of specific APIs and integrates the obtained results into subsequent token predictions.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [172]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 1,150
Research works printed but not linked: 50
- Armen Aghajanyan, Dmytro Okhonko, Mike Lewis, Mandar Joshi, Hu Xu, Gargi Ghosh, and Luke Zettle- moyer. 2021. Htlm: Hyper-text pre-training and prompting of language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Eugene Agichtein and Luis Gravano. 2000. Snowball: Extracting relations from large plain-text collections. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Dig- ital Libraries, DL '00, page 85-94, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI
- Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Berthier Ribeiro-Neto, et al. 1999. Modern information retrieval, volume 463. ACM press New York.
- Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic parsing on Freebase from question-answer pairs. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 1533-1544, Seattle, Wash- ington, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
- Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoff- mann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Jacob Menick, Roman Ring, Tom Hen- nigan, Saffron Huang, Loren Maggiore, Chris Jones, Albin Cassirer, Andy Brock, Michela Paganini, Ge- offrey Irving, Oriol Vinyals, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Jack W. Rae, Erich Elsen, and Laurent Sifre. 2021. Improving language models by retriev- ing from trillions of tokens. · DOI · Paper page
- Sergey Brin. 1999. Extracting patterns and relations from the world wide web. In The World Wide Web and Databases, pages 172-183, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- 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. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
- Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vin- odkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghe- mawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fe- dus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankara- narayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Bren- nan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. · DOI · Paper page
- Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. 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 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Bhuwan Dhingra, Jeremy R. Cole, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Daniel Gillick, Jacob Eisenstein, and William W. Cohen. 2022. Time-aware language models as temporal knowledge bases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:257-273. · DOI
- Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2022. Pal: Program-aided language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasu- pat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrieval- augmented language model pre-training. · DOI · Paper page
- Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2020. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. 2022. Unnatural instructions: Tuning lan- guage models with (almost) no human labor. · DOI
- Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question an- swering. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi- Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Survey of hallu- cination in natural language generation. ACM Com- puting Surveys. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F. Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. 2020. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423-438. · DOI · Paper page
- Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale dis- tantly supervised challenge dataset for reading com- prehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Van- couver, Canada. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, Matthijs Douze, Hérve Jégou, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Fasttext. zip: Compressing text classification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03651. · arXiv
- Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R. Varsh- ney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. · DOI · Paper page
- Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of machine translation summit x: papers, pages 79-86.
- Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8460-8478, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Subhro Roy, Aida Amini, Nate Kushman, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2016. MAWPS: A math word problem repository. In Pro- ceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1152-1157, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Red- field, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Al- berti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob De- vlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question an- swering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466. · DOI · Paper page
- Patrick Lewis, Barlas Oguz, Ruty Rinott, Sebastian Riedel, and Holger Schwenk. 2019. Mlqa: Eval- uating cross-lingual extractive question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07475. · arXiv
- Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Mikel Artetxe, Tianlu Wang, Shuohui Chen, Daniel Simig, Myle Ott, Na- man Goyal, Shruti Bhosale, Jingfei Du, Ramakanth Pasunuru, Sam Shleifer, Punit Singh Koura, Vishrav Chaudhary, Brian O'Horo, Jeff Wang, Luke Zettle- moyer, Zornitsa Kozareva, Mona Diab, Veselin Stoy- anov, and Xian Li. 2021. Few-shot learning with multilingual language models. · DOI
- Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factual- ity in abstractive summarization. · DOI · Paper page
- David McClosky, Eugene Charniak, and Mark Johnson. 2006. Effective self-training for parsing. In Pro- ceedings of the Human Language Technology Con- ference of the NAACL, Main Conference, pages 152- 159, New York City, USA. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics.
- Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture mod- els. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations.
- Shen-yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and develop- ing English math word problem solvers. In Proceed- ings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 975-984, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. 2021. Webgpt: Browser- assisted question-answering with human feedback. · DOI · Paper page
- Aaron Parisi, Yao Zhao, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Talm: Tool augmented language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2080-2094, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. KILT: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowl- edge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Confer- ence on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Lan- guage models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
- Roi Reichart and Ari Rappoport. 2007. Self-training for enhancement and domain adaptation of statisti- cal parsers trained on small datasets. In Proceed- ings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 616-623, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
- Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Zhengbao Jiang, Fabio Petroni, Patrick Lewis, Gautier Izacard, Qingfei You, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Edouard Grave, and Se- bastian Riedel. 2022. Peer: A collaborative lan- guage model. · DOI · Paper page
- Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021a. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: Main Vol- ume, pages 255-269, Online. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021b. Generating datasets with pretrained language models. In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6943- 6951, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, William Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kam- badur, and Jason Weston. 2022. Blenderbot 3: a de- ployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. · DOI · Paper page
- Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, YaGuang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, De- hao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, Igor Krivokon, Will Rusch, Marc Pickett, Pranesh Srinivasan, Laichee Man, Kathleen Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Soraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinod- kumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman- John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravi Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, Viktoriya Kuzmina, Joe Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Lan- guage models for dialog applications. · DOI · Paper page
- Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Al- isa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Self-instruct: Aligning lan- guage model with self generated instructions. · DOI · Paper page
- Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raf- fel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yo- gatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Met- zler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Guillaume Wenzek, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Alexis Con- neau, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, Ar- mand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2020. CCNet: Extracting high quality monolingual datasets from web crawl data. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4003-4012, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. · DOI · Paper page
- David Yarowsky. 1995. Unsupervised word sense dis- ambiguation rivaling supervised methods. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 189-196, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. · DOI · Paper page
- Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mi- haylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Opt: Open pre- trained transformer language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T.
- ORCID
- Zettlemoyer, Luke
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 68539-68551
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.04761
- OpenAlex
- W7133214447
- Cited by
- 1,150
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 730 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 165 · 2023: 119
- FWCI
- 492.67
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- tool use, language models, self-supervised learning, large language models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review