The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
OlaGPT: Empowering LLMs With Human-like Problem-Solving Abilities
Open accessAbstract
In most current research, large language models (LLMs) are able to perform reasoning tasks by generating chains of thought through the guidance of specific prompts. However, there still exists a significant discrepancy between their capability in solving complex reasoning problems and that of humans. At present, most approaches focus on chains of thought (COT) and tool use, without considering the adoption and application of human cognitive frameworks. It is well-known that when confronting complex reasoning challenges, humans typically employ various cognitive abilities, and necessitate interaction with all aspects of tools, knowledge, and the external environment information to accomplish intricate tasks. This paper introduces a novel intelligent framework, referred to as OlaGPT. OlaGPT carefully studied a cognitive architecture framework, and propose to simulate certain aspects of human cognition. The framework involves approximating different cognitive modules, including attention, memory, reasoning, learning, and corresponding scheduling and decision-making mechanisms. Inspired by the active learning mechanism of human beings, it proposes a learning unit to record previous mistakes and expert opinions, and dynamically refer to them to strengthen their ability to solve similar problems. The paper also outlines common effective reasoning frameworks for human problem-solving and designs Chain-of-Thought (COT) templates accordingly. A comprehensive decision-making mechanism is also proposed to maximize model accuracy. The efficacy of OlaGPT has been stringently evaluated on multiple reasoning datasets, and the experimental outcomes reveal that OlaGPT surpasses state-of-the-art benchmarks, demonstrating its superior performance. Our implementation of OlaGPT is available on GitHub: \url{https://github.com/oladata-team/OlaGPT}.
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
“This selective retrieval is important for interactive systems, where irrelevant information can negatively influence interaction quality [58, 64].”
From CAIM: Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive AI Memory Framework for Long-Term Interaction with Intelligent Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [58]
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
“Despite their capabilities, LLMs still have shortcomings, such as a limited context window, which restricts the amount of information that can be processed and thus the ability to understand the ever-changing environment [58, 60] and maintain effective long-term interactions [45, 50].”
From CAIM: Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive AI Memory Framework for Long-Term Interaction with Intelligent Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [58]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“To be aware of the external information, a key principle of cognitive AI is a Decision Unit that considers the current context to determine the next activity.”
From CAIM: Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive AI Memory Framework for Long-Term Interaction with Intelligent Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [58]
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
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04761 · Cited by 1,150
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 · Cited by 608
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
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- John R Anderson. 2009. How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford University Press.
- John R Anderson and Christian J Lebiere. 2014. The atomic components of thought. Psychology Press.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877-1901.
- Jiangjie Chen, Rui Xu, Ziquan Fu, Wei Shi, Zhongqiao Li, Xinbo Zhang, Changzhi Sun, Lei Li, Yanghua Xiao, and Hao Zhou. 2022. E-KAR: A Benchmark for Ratio- nalizing Natural Language Analogical Reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 3941-3955. https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-acl.311
- Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fo- tios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shan- tanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. arXiv:2107.03374 [cs.LG] · arXiv
- Shizhe Diao, Pengcheng Wang, Yong Lin, and Tong Zhang. 2023. Active Prompting with Chain-of-Thought for Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12246 (2023). · arXiv
- Iddo Drori, Sarah Zhang, Reece Shuttleworth, Leonard Tang, Albert Lu, Elizabeth Ke, Kevin Liu, Linda Chen, Sunny Tran, Newman Cheng, Roman Wang, Nikhil Singh, Taylor L. Patti, Jayson Lynch, Avi Shporer, Nakul Verma, Eugene Wu, and Gilbert Strang. 2022. A neural network solves, explains, and generates university math problems by program synthesis and few-shot learning at human level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 32 (aug 2022). https: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123433119 · DOI · Paper page
- Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. PAL: Program-aided Language Models. arXiv:2211.10435 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Kevin Groves, Charles Vance, and Yongsun Paik. 2008. Linking linear/nonlinear thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making. Journal of Busi- ness Ethics 80 (2008), 305-325.
- Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685 (2021). · arXiv
- Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data 7, 3 (2019), 535-547.
- Eeva Kallio. 2011. Integrative thinking is the key: An evaluation of current research into the development of adult thinking. Theory & Psychology 21, 6 (2011), 785-801.
- Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Pe- ter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks. arXiv:2210.02406 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Eunyoung Kim and Hideyuki Horii. 2016. Analogical thinking for generation of innovative ideas: An exploratory study of influential factors. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 11 (2016), 201.
- Boicho Kokinov. 1994. A hybrid model of reasoning by analogy. Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory 2 (1994), 247-318.
- Iuliia Kotseruba and John K Tsotsos. 2020. 40 years of cognitive architectures: core cognitive abilities and practical applications. Artificial Intelligence Review 53, 1 (2020), 17-94.
- Emily R Lai. 2011. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports 6, 1 (2011), 40-41.
- John E Laird. 2019. The Soar cognitive architecture. MIT press.
- John E Laird, Allen Newell, and Paul S Rosenbloom. 1987. Soar: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial intelligence 33, 1 (1987), 1-64.
- Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04146 (2017). · arXiv
- Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessì, Maria Lomeli, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842 (2023). · arXiv
- Allen Newell, Herbert Alexander Simon, et al. 1972. Human problem solving. Vol. 104. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
- Bhargavi Paranjape, Scott Lundberg, Sameer Singh, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marco Tulio Ribeiro. 2023. ART: Automatic multi-step reasoning and tool-use for large language models. (2023). arXiv:2303.09014 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019). · arXiv
- Paul S Rosenbloom, Abram Demski, and Volkan Ustun. 2016. The Sigma cognitive architecture and system: Towards functionally elegant grand unification. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 7, 1 (2016), 1.
- KaShun Shum, Shizhe Diao, and Tong Zhang. 2023. Automatic Prompt Aug- mentation and Selection with Chain-of-Thought from Labeled Data. (2023). arXiv:2302.12822 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models. (2023). arXiv:2203.11171 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 (2022). · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. (2023). arXiv:2201.11903 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Qingyu Yin, Danqing Zhang, Bing Yin, and Diyi Yang. 2022. SeqZero: Few-shot Compositional Semantic Parsing with Sequential Prompts and Zero-shot Models. (2022). arXiv:2205.07381 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Auto- matic Chain of Thought Prompting in Large Language Models. (2022). arXiv:2210.03493 [cs. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents
Sumers, T. R., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Griffiths, T. L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.02427 · Cited by 72
“, 2022c), and various ways to combine multiple forms of learning (Tuyls et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2023).”
BackgroundWesthäußer, R., Minker, W., & Zepf, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789222 · Cited by 1
Lyfe Agents: Generative agents for low-cost real-time social interactions
Kaiya, Z., Naim, M., Kondic, J., Cortes, M., Ge, J., Luo, S., Yang, G. R., & Ahn, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02172 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Xie, Y., Xie, T., Lin, M., Wei, W., Li, C., Kong, B., Chen, L., Zhuo, C., Hu, B., & Li, Z.
- Affiliations
- Tencent (China) (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.16334
- OpenAlex
- W4378711660
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, chain-of-thought prompting, cognitive architecture, active learning (machine learning), decision-making mechanisms, complex reasoning
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
