REVIEW 16 cited by
To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning
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
read the original abstract
Chain-of-thought (CoT) via prompting is the de facto method for eliciting reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). But for what kinds of tasks is this extra ``thinking'' really helpful? To analyze this, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis covering over 100 papers using CoT and ran our own evaluations of 20 datasets across 14 models. Our results show that CoT gives strong performance benefits primarily on tasks involving math or logic, with much smaller gains on other types of tasks. On MMLU, directly generating the answer without CoT leads to almost identical accuracy as CoT unless the question or model's response contains an equals sign, indicating symbolic operations and reasoning. Following this finding, we analyze the behavior of CoT on these problems by separating planning and execution and comparing against tool-augmented LLMs. Much of CoT's gain comes from improving symbolic execution, but it underperforms relative to using a symbolic solver. Our results indicate that CoT can be applied selectively, maintaining performance while saving inference costs. Furthermore, they suggest a need to move beyond prompt-based CoT to new paradigms that better leverage intermediate computation across the whole range of LLM applications.
Forward citations
Cited by 16 Pith papers
-
LA-RL: Label-Aware Self-Reflection for Reinforcement Learning in Information Extraction
Label-aware diagnostic reflection plus two-stage outcome GRPO improves same-backbone IE F1 over SFT, with larger gains under relation-extraction domain shift.
-
UNIBROWSE: A Data-to-Agent Framework for Multimodal BrowseComp
A unified KG-plus-live-web data pipeline covering all three multimodal BrowseComp information-flow patterns, plus an exploration-degree filter, yields a 35B agent at 54.4 avg accuracy.
-
Simplicity Paradox: Debunking myths about prompting and datasets for LLM evaluation
In a 430k-evaluation study, plain baseline prompting beats most elaborate prompting techniques on non-reasoning LLMs across MCQA benchmarks, with only small role-framing variants gaining about 3 percentage points.
-
ScheMatiQ: From Research Question to Structured Data through Interactive Schema Discovery
ScheMatiQ uses LLMs to automatically generate schemas and extract structured data from text corpora based on natural language questions, supported by interactive user steering.
-
CoSPlan: Corrective Sequential Planning via Scene Graph Incremental Updates
VLMs perform near chance at detecting and correcting an erroneous step in visual sequential planning, and incrementally updating scene graphs step-by-step (SGI) yields small, partially inconsistent gains.
-
Rethinking Reasoning Quality in Large Language Models through Enhanced Chain-of-Thought via RL
DRER rewards CoT trajectories that increase the model's likelihood of the correct answer, plus a length penalty, and the new LogicTree benchmark reportedly lifts a 7B model's average accuracy from 0.13 to 0.60.
-
Dissecting Clinical Reasoning in Language Models: A Comparative Study of Prompts and Model Adaptation Strategies
Prompt structure and LoRA adaptation both strongly affect F1 on NLI4CT clinical NLI, but the claimed consistent +8 to 12 point LoRA gains and over 97% validity are not supported by the reported per-configuration results.
-
Retrieval-Confused Generation is a Good Defender for Privacy Violation Attack of Large Language Models
A retrieval-confused generation defense that swaps query comments with the most irrelevant paraphrased comments, reducing privacy attack success rates across eight LLMs.
-
MotiveBench: How Far Are We From Human-Like Motivational Reasoning in Large Language Models?
MotiveBench shows that large language models still lag human consensus on motivational reasoning, with GPT-4o scoring 80.89 percent and chain-of-thought prompting usually reducing accuracy.
-
Token Signature: Predicting Chain-of-Thought Gains with Token Decoding Feature in Large Language Models
The monotonicity of token probabilities during initial decoding predicts chain-of-thought gains, enabling dynamic selection between CoT and direct answers.
-
TrackRec: Iterative Alternating Feedback with Chain-of-Thought via Preference Alignment for Recommendation
TrackRec trains a small LLM to generate user-preference summaries and a validator to score them, alternating the training so each improves the other, and reports gains on public and industrial recommendation benchmarks.
-
"Lost-in-the-Later": Framework for Quantifying Contextual Grounding in Large Language Models
LLMs ground answers in early context far more than later context, and chain-of-thought prompting or reasoning models reduce contextual grounding rather than improving it.
-
Hallucination Detection with Small Language Models
A multi-small-model ensemble with sentence splitting, z-score normalization, and harmonic mean detects hallucinations in RAG answers with a reported 10% F1 gain over single-model baselines.
-
SimuPanel: A Novel Immersive Multi-Agent System to Simulate Interactive Expert Panel Discussion
A multi-agent LLM system called SimuPanel simulates expert panel discussions with personas grounded in public academic sources, and a small evaluation suggests the full reasoning pipeline produces higher LLM-judged di...
-
Blueprint First, Model Second: A Framework for Deterministic LLM Workflow
A source-code-driven 'blueprint first' agent framework reports strong τ-bench results, but the paper contains an abstract/body mismatch and releases no artifacts.
-
A Survey on Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning
Recent advances in LLM mathematical reasoning are organized into comprehension and generation phases, covering methods from prompting to test-time scaling.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.