Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

MultiLingPoT: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning with Multilingual Program Fine-tuning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Mixing four programming languages lifts math AI by 6 percent

desk verdict Genuine SFT-based multilingual PoT with a usable dataset, but the headline 6% gain is confounded by a stronger answer selector; the per-language training gains are mostly a data-volume effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12609 v1 pith:JDW4Y75R submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CL

Nianqi Li , Zujie Liang , Siyu Yuan , Jiaqing Liang , Feng Wei , Yanghua Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords mathematicalreasoningprogram-of-thoughtmultilingualcodegenerationsupervisedfine-tuninglanguagemodelsself-consistencyselectiondataaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a small code model reasons better at math when it is fine-tuned on Program-of-Thought solutions written in several programming languages instead of one, and better still when it can mix answers across those languages after generating them. Program-of-Thought means the model writes a short program as its intermediate reasoning step and runs it to get the answer. Using automatically drafted, execution-verified solutions in Python, C++, Java, and Matlab for GSM8K and MATH, the authors fine-tune 7-billion-parameter code models and report that each language's accuracy rises by about 2.5 points over single-language training. After a posterior mixing step that votes over the four languages and breaks ties with a scorer, the model reports roughly a 6% improvement over a single-language PoT baseline with data augmentation. The practical stakes are that multilingual program training is a cheap, general recipe for small code models on math reasoning, and that the choice of programming language is itself part of the reasoning strategy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a supervised fine-tuning setup that makes programming language an explicit conditional variable. For each GSM8K and MATH training problem, the authors prompt a large language model to write a solution function in Python, C++, Java, and Matlab, execute every function, and keep only those that return the correct answer; they then fine-tune a code model on the prompt asking for a program in a specified language. The resulting MultiLingPoT model can answer in any of the four languages, which enables the paper's hybrid strategies. Prior hybrids choose one language before generation using case-based similarity, small-model scorers, an LLM scorer, or direct preference optimization, while posterior hybrids generate all four programs and then mix them; the posterior voting and scorer variants carry the reported gains.

What would settle it

Build a diverse single-language control: for each GSM8K and MATH training problem, collect several distinct correct Python solutions with different algorithms, code styles, or paraphrases so the Python-only training set matches MultiLingPoT's sample count and diversity. If that model matches or beats the 6% advantage, then multilingualism itself is not the causal driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that supervising a model on the same math problem in four programming languages produces cross-language transfer: after fine-tuning, each individual language performs better than a model trained on that language alone, by about 2.5% on average. On complex problems, language preferences become clear, with Python best for number theory, Java for geometry, and Matlab for counting and probability, and no single language is always best. Because the MultiLingPoT model can generate all four solutions, the paper shows that posterior hybrid strategies, meaning self-consistency voting over the four generated programs and optionally an LLM-based scorer to break ties, outperform the best single-language data-augmented baseline by about 6% overall. The paper also reports that the gains transfer to other code-capable base models, while prior strategies that pick a language before generating, including direct preference optimization, are weak and sometimes near random.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the single-language data-augmented baseline is a fair control for data volume; because that baseline repeats identical Python solutions, the reported gains could be caused by having more varied solutions rather than by mixing programming languages.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multilingual PoT training acts as data augmentation: each language gets about a 2.5% accuracy lift, so gains come without writing new math problems.
  • No single programming language dominates, so language choice should be treated as part of the inference strategy rather than fixed in advance.
  • Posterior mixing costs four generations per question but reliably beats single-language self-consistency, improving accuracy by about 6% over single-language PoT with data augmentation.
  • The recipe transfers across code-capable base models, and stronger code pretraining produces larger gains.
  • Choosing the language before generating is hard: prior strategies are near random on simple questions, while posterior selection benefits from seeing the actual generated code.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the active ingredient is solution diversity rather than multilingualism per se, a Python-only training set with many distinct correct programs per problem should reproduce most of the 6% gain; that is a direct test the paper does not run.
  • Because complex problems show stronger language preferences, per-category routing, such as always using Matlab for counting problems, could approach the posterior gain at a fraction of the inference cost.
  • The reported upper bounds in the paper suggest that most of the remaining gap comes from selecting the best language or answer, not from generating correct code, so better mixing rules are the next lever.
  • A cheap approximation to posterior mixing would be a lightweight scorer that reads the first one or two generated programs and decides whether the remaining languages are worth generating.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MultiLingPoT, a multilingual Program-of-Thought method that fine-tunes a code language model on solutions written in Python, C++, Java, and Matlab for GSM8K and MATH. It introduces a new multilingual dataset generated by ChatGPT and filtered by execution, and explores several prior and posterior hybrid strategies (case-based choice, small-model/LLM scorers, DPO, self-consistency, and voting-plus-scoring) to select the best language or answer for each problem. Experiments on CodeLlama-7B, DeepSeekCoder-7B, CodeLlama-Python-7B, and Llama3-8B report that MultiLingPoT training improves each language's accuracy by about 2.5% on average and that the best posterior hybrid outperforms single-language PoT with data augmentation by about 6%.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper provides a useful recipe and a new resource for multilingual program-based mathematical reasoning, and it explicitly addresses a gap in the existing PoT literature. The construction of a filtered multilingual PoT dataset and the systematic comparison of several mixing strategies are valuable contributions. The paper also tests across multiple base models and out-of-domain datasets, which strengthens the empirical scope. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on comparisons that are confounded by data diversity and by the choice of answer-selection mechanism, and there are no variance estimates; these issues need to be resolved before the specific 2.5% and 6% numbers can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Tables 2 and 3] The comparison between MultiLingPoT's individual languages and SinglePoT-DA is confounded by data diversity. The paper itself attributes the gains to "solutions in different programming languages offer more diversity," but SinglePoT-DA repeats identical Python solutions multiple times. To support the claim that multilingualism, rather than generic solution diversity, is responsible for the improvement, a control with diverse single-language augmentation (for example, multiple distinct Python solution programs per problem) is needed.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5.3, Tables 4 and 5] The headline 6% improvement compares MultiLingPoT posterior Llama3 Scorer (66.42 simple, 39.03 complex averages) with SinglePoT-DA.SC (63.88 simple, 37.45 complex averages). These systems differ in two ways: the training data are multilingual versus single-language, and the answer selection is performed by a Llama3-8B-Instruct scorer versus simple majority voting. Without a control in which the same Llama3-8B-Instruct scorer selects among multiple Python samples from SinglePoT-DA, the 6% gain cannot be attributed to multilingual training; it may reflect the stronger aggregation model. Please add this control or soften the causal claim.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Tables 2-6] All reported accuracies come from single runs without error bars or multiple seeds. Several per-language differences are small (for example, C++ on the simple GSM8K training set is 64.97 in both SinglePoT and MultiLingPoT, Table 2; in Table 6, CodeLlama-Python's Python language row is 33.71 versus SinglePoT Python-DA 35.32), so the 2.5% average improvement could be within training noise. At least two seeds with standard deviations, or bootstrap confidence intervals, are needed to support the quantitative claims.
  4. [Section 2 and Section 5.1] The paper criticizes Luo et al. (2024) for prompt-based multilingual PoT and for a biased comparison, but it does not include that method as an experimental baseline anywhere in the evaluation. Since Luo et al. is the closest prior work on multilingual PoT, a direct comparison is necessary to substantiate the claim that the proposed SFT-based approach is preferable for small models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] There is a duplicated word in "The posterior hybrid strategy is is a hybrid strategy".
  2. [Section 2] There are spelling errors: "Basides" should be "Besides" and "comparsion" should be "comparison".
  3. [Limitations] "a prior hybrid method" should be "a prior hybrid method" or "a priori hybrid method", and the phrase has a typographical spacing issue.
  4. [Tables 4 and 5] The table headers "Count Int. Num." and the term "V oting" contain odd spacing; please use standard formatting.
  5. [Section 5.3] The conclusion that prior hybrid strategies help the model select the appropriate language is overstated for the simple datasets: in Table 4, most prior methods perform near or below the Random baseline (e.g., Llama3 Scorer 58.76 versus Random 59.56). The text should acknowledge this more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all central claims are empirical test-set accuracy comparisons, and no fitted parameter or cited result is equivalent by construction to the predicted outcome.

full rationale

The paper's claims are empirical evaluations on held-out test sets (GSM8K-derived, MATH test categories, SVAMP, NumGLUE, Mathematics, ASDiv). The central numbers—about 2.5% per-language improvement from MultiLingPoT training and about 6% improvement from the posterior hybrid—compare test-set accuracies of independently trained models. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the language scorers are trained on training-set correctness labels and applied to test questions, which is a standard supervised selection procedure rather than a circular reduction. The training data are generated by ChatGPT and filtered by program execution, and the posterior Llama3 scorer is an additional aggregation component; these are experimental design choices, not definitional equivalences. The diversity/multilingualism confound discussed in Section 5.2 is a validity threat to the causal interpretation that multilingualism specifically causes the gain, but it does not make any reported accuracy equal to an input by construction. The paper also does not rely on load-bearing self-citations: references to prior work are external, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own earlier papers. Therefore no circular step is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical result depends on assumptions about data quality, language specialization, and evaluation design. No fitted constants or invented entities are introduced; the only hand-chosen number is the case-based choice threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • Case-Based Choice threshold k = 10
    In Section 4.1, the prior hybrid selects a language after accumulating 10 correct training examples; this hand-chosen threshold is not swept or justified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Different programming languages have different specializations for math problems
    Section 1 and Figure 1 motivate multilingual PoT, but this specialization is not independently tested apart from the constructed data.
  • domain assumption Executing generated code and keeping only programs that return the correct answer yields high-quality training data
    Section 3.2 filters by final-answer correctness, which assumes code correctness implies reasoning correctness.
  • domain assumption Similar queries have similar preferred languages
    Section 4.1, cited to Dong et al. 2022, is used by the Case-Based Choice prior hybrid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MultiLingPoT: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning with Multilingual Program Fine-tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDW4Y75R

@misc{pith2026241212609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MultiLingPoT: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning with Multilingual Program Fine-tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDW4Y75R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12609}
}
read the original abstract

Program-of-Thought (PoT), which aims to use programming language instead of natural language as an intermediate step in reasoning, is an important way for LLMs to solve mathematical problems. Since different programming languages excel in different areas, it is natural to use the most suitable language for solving specific problems. However, current PoT research only focuses on single language PoT, ignoring the differences between different programming languages. Therefore, this paper proposes an multilingual program reasoning method, MultiLingPoT. This method allows the model to answer questions using multiple programming languages by fine-tuning on multilingual data. Additionally, prior and posterior hybrid methods are used to help the model select the most suitable language for each problem. Our experimental results show that the training of MultiLingPoT improves each program's mathematical reasoning by about 2.5\%. Moreover, with proper mixing, the performance of MultiLingPoT can be further improved, achieving a 6\% increase compared to the single-language PoT with the data augmentation.Resources of this paper can be found at https://github.com/Nianqi-Li/MultiLingPoT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of different programming languages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of the implementation of the MultiLingPoT methodology, including data construction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Survey of Deep Learning for Geometry Problem Solving

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey organizes deep learning work on geometry problem solving into task, method, benchmark, and evaluation categories, and highlights open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    AI@Meta. 2024. https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md Llama 3 model card

    2024

  4. [4]

    Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    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 2021

  6. [6]

    Alex Davies, Petar Veli c kovi \'c , Lars Buesing, Sam Blackwell, Daniel Zheng, Nenad Toma s ev, Richard Tanburn, Peter Battaglia, Charles Blundell, Andr \'a s Juh \'a sz, et al. 2021. Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with ai. Nature, 600(7887):70--74

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Jacob Devlin. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, et al. 2022. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234

    arXiv 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Zhangyin Feng, Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Xiaocheng Feng, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Daxin Jiang, et al. 2020. Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08155

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Litu Ou, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Specializing smaller language models towards multi-step reasoning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10421--10430. PMLR

    2023

  3. [11]

    Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pal: Program-aided language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10764--10799. PMLR

    2023

  4. [12]

    Mor Geva, Ankit Gupta, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Injecting numerical reasoning skills into language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04487

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    GitHub. 2024. https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/octoverse-2024/ Octoverse: Ai leads python to top language as the number of global developers surges

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for mathematical problem solving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17452

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Joy He-Yueya, Gabriel Poesia, Rose E Wang, and Noah D Goodman. 2023. Solving math word problems by combining language models with symbolic solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09102

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhanming Jie and Wei Lu. 2023. Leveraging training data in few-shot prompting for numerical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18170

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chen Li, Weiqi Wang, Jingcheng Hu, Yixuan Wei, Nanning Zheng, Han Hu, Zheng Zhang, and Houwen Peng. 2024. Common 7b language models already possess strong math capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04706

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jianguang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. Wizardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Xianzhen Luo, Qingfu Zhu, Zhiming Zhang, Libo Qin, Xuanyu Zhang, Qing Yang, Dongliang Xu, and Wanxiang Che. 2024. Python is not always the best choice: Embracing multilingual program of thoughts. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2021. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15772

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Swaroop Mishra, Arindam Mitra, Neeraj Varshney, Bhavdeep Sachdeva, Peter Clark, Chitta Baral, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. Numglue: A suite of fundamental yet challenging mathematical reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05660

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Arvind Neelakantan, Tao Xu, Raul Puri, Alec Radford, Jesse Michael Han, Jerry Tworek, Qiming Yuan, Nikolas Tezak, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, et al. 2022. Text and code embeddings by contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10005

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    OpenAI. 2022. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt Chatgpt

    2022

  18. [26]

    OpenAI. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are nlp models really able to solve simple math word problems? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cheng Qian, Chi Han, Yi R Fung, Yujia Qin, Zhiyuan Liu, and Heng Ji. 2023. Creator: Tool creation for disentangling abstract and concrete reasoning of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14318

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  22. [30]

    Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1--16. IEEE

    2020

  23. [31]

    Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, et al. 2023. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Konstantinos Skianis, Giannis Nikolentzos, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2024. Graph reasoning with large language models via pseudo-code prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17906

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D \' dac Sur \' s, Sachit Menon, and Carl Vondrick. 2023. Vipergpt: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11888--11898

    2023

  26. [34]

    Ke Wang, Houxing Ren, Aojun Zhou, Zimu Lu, Sichun Luo, Weikang Shi, Renrui Zhang, Linqi Song, Mingjie Zhan, and Hongsheng Li. 2023. Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03731

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    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 reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  29. [37]

    Zhen Yang, Ming Ding, Qingsong Lv, Zhihuan Jiang, Zehai He, Yuyi Guo, Jinfeng Bai, and Jie Tang. 2023. Gpt can solve mathematical problems without a calculator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03241

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fei Yu, Anningzhe Gao, and Benyou Wang. 2023 a . Outcome-supervised verifiers for planning in mathematical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09724

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2023 b . Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. 2023. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Linjuan Wu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Weiming Lu. 2024. Self-contrast: Better reflection through inconsistent solving perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02009

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Yilun Zhao, Yitao Long, Hongjun Liu, Ryo Kamoi, Linyong Nan, Lyuhao Chen, Yixin Liu, Xiangru Tang, Rui Zhang, and Arman Cohan. 2024. Docmath-eval: Evaluating math reasoning capabilities of llms in understanding financial documents. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, Yanhan Ye, Zheyan Luo, Zhangchi Feng, and Yongqiang Ma. 2024. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13372

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Sch \"a rli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. 2022. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.