PreprintCited by 0Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

LLM The Genius Paradox: A Linguistic and Math Expert's Struggle with Simple Word-based Counting Problems

Open access
Xu, Nan, Ma, Xuezhe·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Interestingly, LLMs yet struggle with some basic tasks that humans find trivial to handle, e.g., counting the number of character r's in the word "strawberry". There are several popular conjectures (e.g., tokenization, architecture and training data) regarding the reason for deficiency of LLMs in simple word-based counting problems, sharing the similar belief that such failure stems from model pretraining hence probably inevitable during deployment. In this paper, we carefully design multiple evaluation settings to investigate validity of prevalent conjectures. Meanwhile, we measure transferability of advanced mathematical and coding reasoning capabilities from specialized LLMs to simple counting tasks. Although specialized LLMs suffer from counting problems as well, we find conjectures about inherent deficiency of LLMs invalid and further seek opportunities to elicit knowledge and capabilities from LLMs that are beneficial to counting tasks. Compared with strategies such as finetuning and in-context learning that are commonly adopted to enhance performance on new or challenging tasks, we show that engaging reasoning is the most robust and efficient way to help LLMs better perceive tasks with more accurate responses. We hope our conjecture validation design could provide insights into the study of future critical failure modes of LLMs. Based on challenges in transferring advanced capabilities to much simpler tasks, we call for more attention to model capability acquisition and evaluation. We also highlight the importance of cultivating consciousness of "reasoning before responding" during model pretraining.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.14166

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.

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?

  • Counting poses a fundamental challenge for LLMs, including reasoning-specialized models.

    “Despite its simplicity, counting poses a notable fundamental challenge for LLMs (Xu & Ma, 2024; Chang & Bisk, 2024; Zhang & He, 2024; Fu et al., 2024; Conde et al., 2025; Yehudai et al., 2024), even the reasoning ones (Malek et al., 2025)”

    From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Xu & Ma, 2024

  • Mitigation via supervised fine-tuning and engaged reasoning have been proposed for counting failures.

    “Mitigation via supervised fine-tuning (Zhang & He, 2024) and engaged reasoning (Xu & Ma, 2024) have been proposed”

    From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Xu & Ma, 2024

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harki- rat Behl, et al. 2024. Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219. · arXiv
  2. Gustavo Aguilar, Bryan McCann, Tong Niu, Nazneen Rajani, Nitish Shirish Keskar, and Thamar Solorio. 2021. Char2Subword: Extending the subword em- bedding space using robust character compositional- ity. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1640-1651, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI
  3. Loubna Ben Allal, Raymond Li, Denis Kocetkov, Chenghao Mou, Christopher Akiki, Carlos Munoz Ferrandis, Niklas Muennighoff, Mayank Mishra, Alex Gu, Manan Dey, et al. 2023. Santacoder: don't reach for the stars! arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03988. · arXiv
  4. Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. 2021. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732. · arXiv
  5. Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. 2023. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609. · arXiv
  6. Thomas Ball, Shuo Chen, and Cormac Herley. 2024. Can we count on llms? the fixed-effect fallacy and claims of gpt-4 capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07638. · arXiv
  7. Lukas Berglund, Meg Tong, Max Kaufmann, Mikita Balesni, Asa Cooper Stickland, Tomasz Korbak, and Owain Evans. 2023. The reversal curse: Llms trained on" a is b" fail to learn" b is a". arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12288. · arXiv
  8. Steven Bird, Edward Loper, and Ewan Klein. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python. O'Reilly Media Inc.
  9. Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, 5:135-146. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tom B Brown. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. · arXiv
  11. Zheng Cai, Maosong Cao, Haojiong Chen, Kai Chen, Keyu Chen, Xin Chen, Xun Chen, Zehui Chen, Zhi Chen, Pei Chu, et al. 2024. Internlm2 technical re- port. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17297. · arXiv
  12. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. · arXiv
  13. Xinyun Chen, Ryan A Chi, Xuezhi Wang, and Denny Zhou. 2024. Premise order matters in reason- ing with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08939. · arXiv
  14. Jonathan H. Clark, Dan Garrette, Iulia Turc, and John Wieting. 2022. Canine: Pre-training an efficient tokenization-free encoder for language representa- tion. Transactions of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, 10:73-91. · DOI
  15. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question an- swering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457. · arXiv
  16. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
  17. CodeGemmaTeam. 2024. Codegemma: Open code models based on gemma. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11409. · arXiv
  18. DeepSeek-AI. 2024. Deepseek-v2: A strong, economi- cal, and efficient mixture-of-experts language model. Preprint, arXiv:2405.04434. · arXiv
  19. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783. · arXiv
  20. Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2023. Pal: Program-aided language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10764-10799.
  21. PMLR.
  22. Daya Guo, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhenda Xie, Kai Dong, Wentao Zhang, Guanting Chen, Xiao Bi, Yu Wu, YK Li, et al. 2024. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming- the rise of code intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196. · arXiv
  23. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Ja- cob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical prob- lem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874. · arXiv
  24. Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adap- tation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685. · arXiv
  25. Maor Ivgi, Uri Shaham, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Ef- ficient long-text understanding with short-text mod- els. Transactions of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, 11:284-299. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Men- sch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guil- laume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. 2023. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825. · arXiv
  27. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199- 22213.
  28. Taku Kudo. 2018. Subword regularization: Improving neural network translation models with multiple sub- word candidates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10959. · arXiv
  29. Hui Liu, Yongzheng Zhang, Yipeng Wang, Zheng Lin, and Yige Chen. 2020. Joint character-level word em- bedding and adversarial stability training to defend adversarial text. In Proceedings of the AAAI con- ference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8384-8391.
  30. Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paran- jape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024. Lost in the middle: How language mod- els use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157-173. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Tianyang Liu, Canwen Xu, and Julian McAuley. 2023. Repobench: Benchmarking repository-level code auto-completion systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03091. LlamaWebsite. 2024. Introducing llama 3.2. https: //www.llama.com/. Accessed: 14-Oct-2024. · arXiv
  32. Wentao Ma, Yiming Cui, Chenglei Si, Ting Liu, Shijin Wang, and Guoping Hu. 2020. CharBERT: Character- aware pre-trained language model. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 39-50, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  33. Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 142-150, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  34. Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. 2024. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36.
  35. Tomas Mikolov. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781. · arXiv
  36. Milad Moradi and Matthias Samwald. 2021. Evaluating the robustness of neural language models to input perturbations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing, pages 1558-1570, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. OpenAI. 2024. Hello gpt-4. https://openai.com/ index/hello-gpt-4o/. Accessed: 2024-10-06. · DOI
  37. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Machel Reid, Nikolay Savinov, Denis Teplyashin, Dmitry Lepikhin, Timothy Lillicrap, Jean-baptiste Alayrac, Radu Soricut, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Fi- rat, Julian Schrittwieser, et al. 2024. Gemini 1.5: Un- locking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530. · arXiv
  39. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jack- son Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Ju- lian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. 2023. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022. · arXiv
  40. Elias Abad Rocamora, Yongtao Wu, Fanghui Liu, Grigorios Chrysos, and Volkan Cevher. Revisiting character-level adversarial attacks for language mod- els. In Forty-first International Conference on Ma- chine Learning.
  41. Elvis Saravia, Hsien-Chi Toby Liu, Yen-Hao Huang, Junlin Wu, and Yi-Shin Chen. 2018. CARER: Con- textualized affect representations for emotion recog- nition. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3687-3697, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  42. Rico Sennrich. 2015. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.07909. · arXiv
  43. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yu Wu, and Daya Guo. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300. · arXiv
  44. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. In Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31210-31227.
  45. PMLR.
  46. Andrew Shin and Kunitake Kaneko. 2024. Large lan- guage models lack understanding of character com- position of words. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11357. · arXiv
  47. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  48. Zayne Sprague, Fangcong Yin, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Dongwei Jiang, Manya Wadhwa, Prasann Singhal, Xinyu Zhao, Xi Ye, Kyle Mahowald, and Greg Dur- rett. 2024. To cot or not to cot? chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12183. · arXiv
  49. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Se- bastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, , and Jason Wei. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261. · arXiv
  50. Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. 2024. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295. · arXiv
  51. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. · arXiv
  52. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837.
  53. Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, et al. 2023. Larger language models do in-context learning differently. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846. · arXiv
  54. Yonghui Wu. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and ma- chine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144. · arXiv
  55. Zijian Wu, Jiayu Wang, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. 2024. Lean-github: Compiling github lean repositories for a versatile lean prover. Preprint, arXiv:2407.17227. · arXiv
  56. Zikai Xie. 2024. Order matters in hallucination: Rea- soning order as benchmark and reflexive prompt- ing for large-language-models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05093. · arXiv
  57. Huajian Xin, ZZ Ren, Junxiao Song, Zhihong Shao, Wanjia Zhao, Haocheng Wang, Bo Liu, Liyue Zhang, Xuan Lu, Qiushi Du, et al. 2024. Deepseek-prover- v1. 5: Harnessing proof assistant feedback for re- inforcement learning and monte-carlo tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08152. · arXiv
  58. Linting Xue, Aditya Barua, Noah Constant, Rami Al- Rfou, Sharan Narang, Mihir Kale, Adam Roberts, and Colin Raffel. 2022. ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models. Transac- tions of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 10:291-306. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
  60. Gilad Yehudai, Haim Kaplan, Asma Ghandeharioun, Mor Geva, and Amir Globerson. 2024. When can transformers count to n? arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15160. · arXiv
  61. Huaiyuan Ying, Shuo Zhang, Linyang Li, Zhejian Zhou, Yunfan Shao, Zhaoye Fei, Yichuan Ma, Jiawei Hong, Kuikun Liu, Ziyi Wang, et al. 2024. Internlm-math: Open math large language models toward verifiable reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06332. · arXiv
  62. Alex Young, Bei Chen, Chao Li, Chengen Huang, Ge Zhang, Guanwei Zhang, Heng Li, Jiangcheng Zhu, Jianqun Chen, Jing Chang, et al. 2024. Yi: Open foundation models by 01. ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04652. · arXiv
  63. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830. · arXiv
  64. Wanjun Zhong, Ruixiang Cui, Yiduo Guo, Yaobo Liang, Shuai Lu, Yanlin Wang, Amin Saied, Weizhu Chen, and Nan Duan. 2024. AGIEval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: NAACL 2024, pages 2299-2314, Mexico City, Mexico. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Qihao Zhu, Daya Guo, Zhihong Shao, Dejian Yang, Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Y Wu, Yukun Li, Huazuo Gao, Shirong Ma, et al. 2024. Deepseek-coder-v2: Breaking the barrier of closed-source models in code intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11931. LLMs #Params Download Links/Version Llama 3 8B https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct Qwen 1.5 7B https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen1.5-7B-Chat Qwen2 Math 7B https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2-Math-7B-Instruct CodeQwen 1.5 7B https://huggingface.co/Qwen/CodeQwen1.5-7B-Chat Gemma 1 7B https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it CodeGemma 7B https://huggingface.co/google/codegemma-7b-it InternLM2 7B https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm2-chat-7b InternLM2 Math Plus 7B https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm2-math-plus-7b InternLM2 Step Prover 7B https://huggingface.co/internlm/internlm2-step-prover Phi 3 7B https://huggingface.co/microsoft/Phi-3-small-128k-instruct Mistral v0.3 7B https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 Mathstral v0.1 7B https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mathstral-7B-v0.1 Codestral v0.1 22B https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Codestral-22B-v0.1 · arXiv
  66. Answer: No, the substring "Elvp" is not part of the word "Elvis". (Correct) Task III: Word Len Question: How many characters in the word "Missourianism"? True Answer: 13 Direct Answer Number: 12 (Wrong) Open-ended: Let me count them for you! The word "Missourianism" has 12 characters: M-I-S-S-O-U-R-I-A-N-I-S-M. (Wrong) CoT: Here's the step-by-step reasoning: Reasoning: To count the number of characters in the word "Missourianism", I will break it down into individual letters and count them one by one.

Metadata

Authors
Xu, N., & Ma, X.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403995592
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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, LLM failure modes, tokenization, in-context learning, fine-tuning

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