The DOI matches its DataCite record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves
Abstract
Misunderstandings arise not only in interpersonal communication but also between humans and Large Language Models (LLMs). Such discrepancies can make LLMs interpret seemingly unambiguous questions in unexpected ways, yielding incorrect responses. While it is widely acknowledged that the quality of a prompt, such as a question, significantly impacts the quality of the response provided by LLMs, a systematic method for crafting questions that LLMs can better comprehend is still underdeveloped. In this paper, we present a method named `Rephrase and Respond' (RaR), which allows LLMs to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans and provide responses in a single prompt. This approach serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We also introduce a two-step variant of RaR, where a rephrasing LLM first rephrases the question and then passes the original and rephrased questions together to a different responding LLM. This facilitates the effective utilization of rephrased questions generated by one LLM with another. Our experiments demonstrate that our methods significantly improve the performance of different models across a wide range to tasks. We further provide a comprehensive comparison between RaR and the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically. We show that RaR is complementary to CoT and can be combined with CoT to achieve even better performance. Our work not only contributes to enhancing LLM performance efficiently and effectively but also sheds light on a fair evaluation of LLM capabilities. Data and codes are available at https://github.com/uclaml/Rephrase-and-Respond.
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
“The two-step RaR variant, incorporating rephrasing and response LLMs, achieves substantial performance enhancements across various tasks.”
From A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications (2024) · cites this paper as Deng et al. [2023]
In the citing paper
“RaR allows LLMs to rephrase and expand questions in a single prompt, demonstrating improved comprehension and response accuracy.”
From A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications (2024) · cites this paper as Deng 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
A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference
Williams, A., Nangia, N., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1101 · Cited by 3,342
Prompt Engineering for Healthcare: Methodologies and Applications
Wang, J., Shi, E., Yu, S., Wu, Z., Ma, C., Dai, H., Yang, Q., Kang, Y., Wu, J., Hu, H., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.14670 · Cited by 150
Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks
Kim, G., Baldi, P., & McAleer, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17491 · Cited by 101
Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations
Jung, J., Qin, L., Welleck, S., Brahman, F., Bhagavatula, C., Bras, R. L., & Choi, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.11822 · Cited by 98
Pan, L., Saxon, M., Xu, W., Nathani, D., Wang, X., & Wang, W. Y. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00660 · Cited by 86
How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowball
Zhang, M., Press, O., Merrill, W., Liu, A., & Smith, N. A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.13534 · Cited by 77
Selectively Answering Ambiguous Questions
Cole, J., Zhang, M., Gillick, D., Eisenschlos, J., Dhingra, B., & Eisenstein, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.35 · Cited by 19
Cited by
A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications
Sahoo, P., Singh, A. K., Saha, S., Jain, V., Mondal, S., & Chadha, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.07927 · Cited by 288
Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivity
Romanou, A., Ibrahim, M., Ross, C., Oktar, K., Shaib, C., Bell, S. J., Ovalle, A., Bosselut, A., Dodge, J., Sinha, K., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.13285 · Cited by 24
Unveiling the Key Factors for Distilling Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Chen, X., Sun, Z., Wenjin, G., Zhang, M., Chen, Y., Sun, Y., Su, H., Pan, Y., Klakow, D., Li, W., et al. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.782 · Cited by 7
Palmeira Ferraz, T., Mehta, K., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-S., Oraby, S., Liu, S., Subramanian, V., Chung, T., Bansal, M., & Peng, N. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.458 · Cited by 3
“First list the required constraints then answer the instruction.”
FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
Dai, D., Liu, M., Li, A., Cao, J., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Peng, X., & Zheng, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06939 · Cited by 1
“• Rephrase and Respond (RR) [10] : Mandates restatement of the problem in the model’s own words, ensuring comprehensive understanding before solution generation.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Deng, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, Z., & Gu, Q.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2311.04205
- 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.
