Asking a reasoning model several problems at once reveals large accuracy drops and exposes differences that single-question benchmarks miss.
MetaLadder: Ascending Mathematical Solution Quality via Analogical-Problem Reasoning Transfer
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in solving mathematical reasoning tasks, leveraging Chain-of-Thought (CoT) data as a vital component in guiding answer generation. Current paradigms typically generate CoT and answers directly for a given problem, diverging from human problem-solving strategies to some extent. Humans often solve problems by recalling analogous cases and leveraging their solutions to reason about the current task. Inspired by this cognitive process, we propose \textbf{MetaLadder}, a novel framework that explicitly prompts LLMs to recall and reflect on meta-problems, those structurally or semantically analogous problems, alongside their CoT solutions before addressing the target problem. Additionally, we introduce a problem-restating mechanism to enhance the model's comprehension of the target problem by regenerating the original question, which further improves reasoning accuracy. Therefore, the model can achieve reasoning transfer from analogical problems, mimicking human-like "learning from examples" and generalization abilities. Extensive experiments on mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that our MetaLadder significantly boosts LLMs' problem-solving accuracy, largely outperforming standard CoT-based methods (\textbf{10.3\%} accuracy gain) and other methods. Our code and data has been released at https://github.com/LHL3341/MetaLadder.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CL 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
REST: Stress Testing Large Reasoning Models by Asking Multiple Problems at Once
Asking a reasoning model several problems at once reveals large accuracy drops and exposes differences that single-question benchmarks miss.