PreprintCited by 54Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting

Open access
Wang, Xuezhi, Zhou, Denny·2024·arXiv

Abstract

In enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), prior research primarily focuses on specific prompting techniques such as few-shot or zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. These methods, while effective, often involve manually intensive prompt engineering. Our study takes a novel approach by asking: Can LLMs reason effectively without prompting? Our findings reveal that, intriguingly, CoT reasoning paths can be elicited from pre-trained LLMs by simply altering the \textit{decoding} process. Rather than conventional greedy decoding, we investigate the top-$k$ alternative tokens, uncovering that CoT paths are frequently inherent in these sequences. This approach not only bypasses the confounders of prompting but also allows us to assess the LLMs' \textit{intrinsic} reasoning abilities. Moreover, we observe that the presence of a CoT in the decoding path correlates with a higher confidence in the model's decoded answer. This confidence metric effectively differentiates between CoT and non-CoT paths. Extensive empirical studies on various reasoning benchmarks show that the proposed CoT-decoding effectively elicits reasoning capabilities from language models, which were previously obscured by standard greedy decoding.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.10200

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Wang & Zhou (2024) found that even while solving basic arithmetic in GSM8K chain-of-thought, diverse COT reasoning tokens outperform pure greedy COT decoding.

    “Wang Wang & Zhou (2024) found that even while solving basic arithmetic in GSM8K chain-of-thought (COT), diverse COT reasoning tokens outperform pure greedy COT decoding.”

    From Turning up the heat: Min-p sampling for creative and coherent llm outputs (2024) · cites this paper as Wang & Zhou (2024)

    Table 2 reports that CoT-decoding outperformed greedy decoding on GSM8K (72.0% versus 44.0%), and §2.1 explains that exploring alternative first-step tokens can reveal CoT paths. But the comparison is against ordinary greedy decoding, not specifically greedy CoT decoding; the paper says greedy decoding may answer directly without producing a CoT path. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wang & Zhou (2024) found a significant correlation between the confidence or certainty level of the final answer token choice and correct scores on GSM8K CoT, and that promoting diverse lower-probability token choices encouraged generating chains of thought beneficial for reasoning, resulting in higher scores overall.

    “Wang & Zhou (2024) found a significant correlation between the confidence/certainly level of the final answer token choice and correct scores on GSM8K CoT, and that promoting diverse lower-probability token choices encouraged generating chains of thought that were beneficial for reasoning, resulting in higher scores overall.”

    From Turning up the heat: Min-p sampling for creative and coherent llm outputs (2024) · cites this paper as Wang & Zhou (2024)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski. A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines. Cognitive Science, 9(1):147-169, 1985. ISSN 0364-0213. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0364021385800124.
  2. R. Anil, A. M. Dai, O. Firat, M. Johnson, D. Lepikhin, A. Passos, S. Shakeri, E. Taropa, P. Bailey, Z. Chen, et al. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403, 2023. · arXiv
  3. B. bench authors. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uyTL5Bvosj.
  4. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  5. C. Burns, H. Ye, D. Klein, and J. Steinhardt. Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=ETKGuby0hcs.
  6. C. Chen, S. Borgeaud, G. Irving, J.-B. Lespiau, L. Sifre, and J. M. Jumper. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. ArXiv, abs/2302.01318, 2023a. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256503945. · arXiv
  7. W. Chen, X. Ma, X. Wang, and W. W. Cohen. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023b. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=YfZ4ZPt8zd.
  8. A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P. Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann, P. Schuh, K. Shi, S. Tsvyashchenko, J. Maynez, A. Rao, P. Barnes, Y. Tay, N. Shazeer, V. Prabhakaran, E. Reif, N. Du, B. Hutchinson, R. Pope, J. Bradbury, J. Austin, M. Isard, G. Gur-Ari, P. Yin, T. Duke, A. Levskaya, S. Ghemawat, S. Dev, H. Michalewski, X. Garcia, V. Misra, K. Robinson, L. Fedus, D. Zhou, D. Ippolito, D. Luan, H. Lim, B. Zoph, A. Spiridonov, R. Sepassi, D. Dohan, S. Agrawal, M. Omernick, A. M. Dai, T. S. Pillai, M. Pellat, A. Lewkowycz, E. Moreira, R. Child, O. Polozov, K. Lee, Z. Zhou, X. Wang, B. Saeta, M. Diaz, O. Firat, M. Catasta, J. Wei, K. Meier-Hellstern, D. Eck, J. Dean, S. Petrov, and N. Fiedel. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1-113, 2023. URL http://jmlr.org/ papers/v24/22-1144.html.
  9. K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021a. · arXiv
  10. K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021b. · arXiv
  11. B. Eikema and W. Aziz. Is MAP decoding all you need? the inadequacy of the mode in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4506-4520, Barcelona, Spain (Online), Dec. 2020. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.coling-main.398.
  12. A. Fan, M. Lewis, and Y. Dauphin. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 889-898, Melbourne, Australia, July 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P18-1082. URL https://aclanthology.org/P18-1082. · DOI · Paper page
  13. G. Feng, B. Zhang, Y. Gu, H. Ye, D. He, and L. Wang. Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: A theoretical perspective. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=qHrADgAdYu.
  14. J. Ficler and Y. Goldberg. Controlling linguistic style aspects in neural language generation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Stylistic Variation, pages 94-104, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sept. 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/W17-4912. URL https: //aclanthology.org/W17-4912. · DOI
  15. L. Gao, A. Madaan, S. Zhou, U. Alon, P. Liu, Y. Yang, J. Callan, and G. Neubig. Pal: Program-aided language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10435, 2022. · arXiv
  16. Gemini. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. · arXiv
  17. A. Holtzman, J. Buys, M. Forbes, A. Bosselut, D. Golub, and Y. Choi. Learning to write with cooperative discriminators. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1638-1649, Melbourne, Australia, July 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P18-1152. URL https://aclanthology.org/ P18-1152. · DOI · Paper page
  18. A. Holtzman, J. Buys, L. Du, M. Forbes, and Y. Choi. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=rygGQyrFvH.
  19. J. Huang, S. Gu, L. Hou, Y. Wu, X. Wang, H. Yu, and J. Han. Large language models can self-improve. In H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, editors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1051-1068, Singapore, Dec. 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.
  20. T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 22199-22213, 2022.
  21. Y. Leviathan, M. Kalman, and Y. Matias. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:254096365.
  22. X. L. Li, A. Holtzman, D. Fried, P. Liang, J. Eisner, T. Hashimoto, L. Zettlemoyer, and M. Lewis. Contrastive decoding: Open-ended text generation as optimization. In A. Rogers, J. Boyd- Graber, and N. Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12286-12312, Toronto, Canada, July 2023a. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.687. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.687. · DOI
  23. Y. Li, K. Sreenivasan, A. Giannou, D. Papailiopoulos, and S. Oymak. Dissecting chain-of-thought: Compositionality through in-context filtering and learning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 2023b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=xEhKwsqxMa.
  24. W. Ling, D. Yogatama, C. Dyer, and P. Blunsom. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04146, 2017. · arXiv
  25. C. Meister, T. Pimentel, G. Wiher, and R. Cotterell. Typical decoding for natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00666, 2022. · arXiv
  26. S. Min, X. Lyu, A. Holtzman, M. Artetxe, M. Lewis, H. Hajishirzi, and L. Zettlemoyer. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In EMNLP, 2022.
  27. M. Nye, A. J. Andreassen, G. Gur-Ari, H. Michalewski, J. Austin, D. Bieber, D. Dohan, A. Lewkowycz, M. Bosma, D. Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114, 2021. · arXiv
  28. OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  29. B. Prystawski, M. Y. Li, and N. Goodman. Why think step by step? reasoning emerges from the locality of experience. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=rcXXNFVlEn.
  30. Y. Razeghi, R. L. Logan IV, M. Gardner, and S. Singh. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot numerical reasoning. In Y. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, and Y. Zhang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 840-854, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Dec. 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.59. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.59. B. Romera-Paredes, M. Barekatain, A. Novikov, M. Balog, M. P. Kumar, E. Dupont, F. J. R. Ruiz, J. Ellenberg, P. Wang, O. Fawzi, P. Kohli, and A. Fawzi. Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models. Nature, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6. · DOI · Paper page
  31. M. Suzgun, N. Scales, N. Schärli, S. Gehrmann, Y. Tay, H. W. Chung, A. Chowdhery, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, D. Zhou, , and J. Wei. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. · arXiv
  32. A. K. Vijayakumar, M. Cogswell, R. R. Selvaraju, Q. Sun, S. Lee, D. J. Crandall, and D. Batra. Diverse beam search for improved description of complex scenes. In S. A. McIlraith and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 7371-7379. AAAI Press, 2018. doi: 10.1609/AAAI.V32I1.12340. URL https: //doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v32i1.12340. · DOI · Paper page
  33. X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou. Self- consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023a. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= 1PL1NIMMrw.
  34. A. Webson and E. Pavlick. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? In M. Carpuat, M.-C. de Marneffe, and I. V. Meza Ruiz, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2300-2344, Seattle, United States, July 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.167. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022. naacl-main.167. · DOI · Paper page
  35. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, brian ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In A. H. Oh, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, and K. Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J.
  36. Y. Xie, K. Kawaguchi, Y. Zhao, X. Zhao, M.-Y. Kan, J. He, and Q. Xie. Self-evaluation guided beam search for reasoning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bw82hwg5Q3.
  37. C. Yang, X. Wang, Y. Lu, H. Liu, Q. V. Le, D. Zhou, and X. Chen. Large language models as optimizers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bb4VGOWELI.
  38. S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y. Cao, and K. R. Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliber- ate problem solving with large language models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=5Xc1ecxO1h.
  39. M. Yasunaga, X. Chen, Y. Li, P. Pasupat, J. Leskovec, P. Liang, E. H. Chi, and D. Zhou. Large language models as analogical reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01714, 2023. · arXiv
  40. X. Ye and G. Durrett. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot prompting for textual reason- ing. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 30378-30392.
  41. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ c402501846f9fe03e2cac015b3f0e6b1-Paper-Conference.pdf.
  42. D. Zhou, N. Schärli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. V. Le, and E. H. Chi. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023a. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=WZH7099tgfM.
  43. Y. Zhou, A. I. Muresanu, Z. Han, K. Paster, S. Pitis, H. Chan, and J. Ba. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=92gvk82DE-.
  44. Y. Zhou, K. Lyu, A. S. Rawat, A. K. Menon, A. Rostamizadeh, S. Kumar, J.-F. Kagy, and R. Agarwal. Distillspec: Improving speculative decoding via knowledge distillation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= rsY6J3ZaTF.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., & Zhou, D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
66383-66409
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415797312
Cited by
54
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 5
FWCI
15.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • 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 › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
chain-of-thought reasoning, prompting, 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