Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.20311 v1 pith:4YN4MVYB submitted 2024-07-29 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords modelsreasoninglanguagesolvemathquestionshiddenproblems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in language models have demonstrated their capability to solve mathematical reasoning problems, achieving near-perfect accuracy on grade-school level math benchmarks like GSM8K. In this paper, we formally study how language models solve these problems. We design a series of controlled experiments to address several fundamental questions: (1) Can language models truly develop reasoning skills, or do they simply memorize templates? (2) What is the model's hidden (mental) reasoning process? (3) Do models solve math questions using skills similar to or different from humans? (4) Do models trained on GSM8K-like datasets develop reasoning skills beyond those necessary for solving GSM8K problems? (5) What mental process causes models to make reasoning mistakes? (6) How large or deep must a model be to effectively solve GSM8K-level math questions? Our study uncovers many hidden mechanisms by which language models solve mathematical questions, providing insights that extend beyond current understandings of LLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding Reasoning from Pretraining to Post-Training

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A joint scaling law: post-RL chess and math performance is predictable from pretraining loss, RL improvement rate grows with pretraining tokens, and RL both amplifies and discovers moves depending on difficulty.

  2. How Data Shapes RoPE Frequency Usage: From Positional Scale Matching to Length Generalization

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    RoPE frequency usage is determined by a data-induced dependency width W, with the optimal frequency scaling as π/W, explaining both learned spectra and the success of position interpolation.

  3. Scaling Latent Reasoning via Looped Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Looped language models with latent iterative computation and entropy-regularized depth allocation achieve performance matching up to 12B standard LLMs through superior knowledge manipulation.

  4. Enough is as good as a feast: A Comprehensive Analysis of How Reinforcement Learning Mitigates Task Conflicts in LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RL-trained LLMs keep most of their skills after weight merging, while SFT-trained LLMs drop about 19% on average, because RL keeps parameter updates smaller and more task-compatible.

  5. The Power of Power Law: Asymmetry Enables Compositional Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Power-law data sampling creates beneficial asymmetry in the loss landscape that lets models acquire high-frequency skill compositions first, enabling more efficient learning of rare long-tail skills than uniform distr...

  6. Depth Gives a False Sense of Privacy: LLM Internal States Inversion

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM internal states at intermediate layers contain enough information to recover long, sensitive user prompts with high accuracy.

  7. Position: We Need An Algorithmic Understanding of Generative AI

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper argues for a systematic algorithmic understanding of LLMs and presents a case study suggesting that Llama models do not implement BFS or DFS on graph navigation tasks.

Pith tools