Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Distilling Tool Knowledge into Language Models via Back-Translated Traces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Back-translated tool traces lift a 7B math model on AIME, AMC, and Olympiad Bench without tools at inference.

desk verdict A real back-translation pipeline, but the claimed internalization of tool knowledge is untested—no control SFT on plain traces. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19171 v1 pith:W2FFIX34 submitted 2025-06-23 cs.LG

Xingyue Huang , Xianglong Hu , Zifeng Ding , Yuan He , Rishabh , Waleed Alzarooni , Ziyu Ye , Wendong Fan
show 4 more authors
Bailan He Haige Bo Changran Hu Guohao Li
This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords tool-integratedreasoningback-translatedtracesmathematicalsymboliccomputationknowledgedistillationsupervisedfine-tuningcompetitionmathsyntheticdata
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

Mathematical reasoning in language models often breaks on exact arithmetic and multi-step symbolic work; tool-integrated reasoning fixes this but requires an interpreter at inference time. This paper asks whether the knowledge gained by solving problems with symbolic tools can be moved into the model itself, so that no tools are needed later. Their answer is a back-translation pipeline: a SolverAgent produces tool-augmented solution traces, only the correct ones are kept, a TranslatorAgent converts every tool call into a natural-language sub-solution, a JudgeAgent checks each conversion for mathematical equivalence, and a RephraseAgent weaves everything into one fluent chain of thought. Fine-tuning a small 7B open-source math model on these 11.6k traces raises its accuracy on AIME from 7.8% to 10.0%, on AMC from 51.2% to 52.4%, and on Olympiad Bench from 41.2% to 43.1%, with no tool access at inference. The paper also documents a cost: performance falls on easier datasets such as GSM8K and MATH500, which the authors attribute to the model over-reasoning on problems that are better solved by short heuristics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-stage back-translation pipeline that turns interleaved tool calls into language. Given a correct TIR trace, the TranslatorAgent receives each tool's name, its docstring, and the actual arguments, and produces a natural-language subproblem trace; the JudgeAgent verifies mathematical equivalence against the original tool output, tolerating format differences; the RephraseAgent then rewrites the whole trace—planning, explanations, and verified sub-traces—into a single flowing solution that never mentions tools. The method also depends on a curated symbolic toolkit (built on SymPy) whose fixed set of functions, each with structured input/output descriptions, lets the SolverAgent select tools through language instead of writing code. The acceptance-rate analysis shows the mechanism is strongest for surface-level symbolic operations (polynomial degree, factoring, definite integrals) and weakest for tools like univariate-inequality solvers and linear-system solvers, whose intermediate reasoning is harder to render faithfully in words.

What would settle it

Fine-tune the same base model on the same 11.6k problems using natural-language traces generated directly by a strong LLM without any tool calls or back-translation, then compare AIME, AMC, and Olympiad Bench accuracies; if the control matches or beats the back-translated-trace model, the central claim that tool knowledge is being distilled is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that symbolic tool competence can be transferred into a model that never executes a tool, by translating what the tool does into words. The authors build a SolverAgent that interleaves planning, calls to a curated symbolic math toolkit, reflection, and plan updates, producing TIR traces; filtering to the roughly 46% of traces that end in the correct answer yields 11.6k examples for distillation. A TranslatorAgent rewrites each tool invocation as a self-contained reasoning trace, a JudgeAgent keeps only translations whose final answer is mathematically equivalent to the tool's output, and a RephraseAgent merges the pieces into a single natural-language solution that contains no mention of tools or code. After LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-MATH-7B-Instruct on these traces, accuracy improves on the three hardest benchmarks (AIME 7.8 to 10.0, AMC 51.2 to 52.4, Olympiad Bench 41.2 to 43.1) while dropping on MATH500 (82.4 to 78.2) and GSM8K (95.5 to 91.1). The paper interprets the pattern as internalization of tool-driven, step-by-step reasoning patterns, which helps on multi-step competition problems and hurts on simple ones.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the AIME, AMC, and Olympiad Bench gains come from the back-translated tool knowledge rather than from the sheer addition of 11.6k high-quality synthetic solutions, a premise the paper leaves untested because it reports no control SFT run on plain natural-language traces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tool-free model can inherit at least some of the accuracy of a tool-using agent; the AIME, AMC, and Olympiad Bench improvements in Table 3 are the direct evidence.
  • Deployment becomes simpler, since the fine-tuned student only needs ordinary text generation at inference time and no interpreter, tool service, or remote dependency.
  • The released 11.6k trace dataset is itself a resource: other open-weight models can be fine-tuned on it with the same recipe, and the paper's ablations can be reproduced without re-running the solver.
  • Because the gains concentrate on competition-level multi-step benchmarks, back-translated TIR data is best viewed as targeted supervision for hard reasoning, not as a general-purpose math data augmentation.
  • Training traces that encode exhaustive, faithful step-by-step reasoning can overshoot on easy problems, so the distillation signal should be matched to the difficulty of the target tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the causal role of the tool knowledge is not isolated, because no control SFT run on an equal-sized corpus of plain natural-language solutions is reported; part of the AIME, AMC, and Olympiad Bench gains could come from generic exposure to 11.6k hard solved problems.
  • Editorial inference: the per-tool acceptance-rate stratification suggests that distilling further gains may require a stronger translator for equation-solving and inequality tools, or a fallback that keeps some tool semantics in the trace.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to mix back-translated traces with concise traces on easy problems; if over-reasoning is the cause of the GSM8K and MATH500 regressions, such mixing should recover the lost points while preserving the hard-benchmark gains.
  • Editorial inference: the same back-translation pattern may carry over to other symbolic domains, such as formal verification or scientific computing, where a tool's output is exact but its reasoning needs to be explained in words.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a back-translation pipeline that converts tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) traces generated by a SymPy-based SolverAgent into natural-language reasoning traces using Translator, Judge, and Rephrase agents. The authors fine-tune Qwen2.5-MATH-7B-Instruct on the resulting 11.6k traces and report accuracy changes on AIME, OlympiadBench, AMC, MATH500, and GSM8K (Table 3), along with case studies, a TIR error analysis, and per-tool acceptance rates. They release the synthesized dataset.

Significance. The paper's contribution is a practical pipeline plus a released dataset; if the attribution claim held, it would be a useful method for transferring tool-augmented reasoning to tool-free deployments. The authors should be credited for evaluating on external competition benchmarks, applying 10-gram deduplication against test sets, reporting failure cases and declines rather than cherry-picking, and releasing the synthesized data. However, the central causal claim—that back-translated tool knowledge, rather than generic SFT on 11.6k correct solutions, drives the gains—is not yet supported by the experimental design; the current evidence is consistent with a weaker and less novel claim. The missing control and absence of variance estimates are the main barriers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 3] The reported comparison is only baseline-versus-SFT on the back-translated traces, so the headline gains on AIME, AMC, and OlympiadBench are equally consistent with the hypothesis that supervised fine-tuning on any 11.6k correct, high-quality synthetic solutions improves these benchmarks. Because the abstract and Section 5.1 attribute the gains to internalizing tool knowledge, a control is required: fine-tune the same student model with the same LoRA configuration on plain NL CoT traces generated by the same teacher model (GPT-4.1-mini) without tool access for the same solved problems, and ideally also on the original TIR traces and on traces processed by the Translator/Rephrase agents without tool calls. Without such a control, the causal claim is untested; Section 6's limitations do not acknowledge this missing control.
  2. [Section 5, Table 3] All numbers come from a single training run with no multiple seeds, and the benchmarks differ in size, with AIME 2024 containing 30 problems; the +2.2 point improvement there is one extra solved problem, and the AMC (+1.2) and OlympiadBench (+1.9) deltas are of similar size to the reported declines on MATH500 (-4.2) and GSM8K (-4.4). The paper should report mean and standard deviation or confidence intervals over at least three LoRA seeds, and ideally also over different random subsets of the training data, before claiming that the gains are systematic.
  3. [Section 4 and Remark 1] The JudgeAgent verifies only that a TranslatorAgent subproblem trace reproduces the individual tool-call output; there is no verification of the final holistic trace produced by RephraseAgent, so end-to-end correctness of the 11.6k training traces is not established. In addition, Remark 1 states that failed translations retain the original tool call information, which directly contradicts the claim in Section 4 that the final trace "removes all tool call information" and weakens the "pure NL" framing of the dataset. The authors should report how many of the 11.6k traces contain raw tool-call remnants, and add a final verification step (e.g., comparing the rephrased trace's final answer against the ground truth) before releasing the dataset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 and Appendix E] The SFT GSM8K trace contains the hallucinated token "disgosition" and the figure caption contains "Faliure mode"; these typos should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5] The HuggingFace URL contains a line break inside "came l-ai/backtranslated-tir"; please fix the URL formatting.
  3. [Throughout] The model name is rendered inconsistently as "Qwen2.5-MATH-7B-Instruct" and "Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct" across the paper; please standardize.
  4. [Related Work] Prior synthetic-data methods are discussed only qualitatively; a quantitative comparison table on the same benchmarks with methods such as MetaMath, WizardMath, or ToRA would help contextualize the reported gains.
  5. [Section 5.3] The TranslatorAgent, JudgeAgent, and RephraseAgent are all powered by GPT-4.1-mini, the same model family as the SolverAgent; a small human-verification sample or a judge from a different model family would strengthen the acceptance-rate analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the back-translation plus SFT pipeline is an empirical distillation method evaluated on external benchmarks, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an experimental pipeline, not a mathematical derivation: SolverAgent produces TIR traces, ground-truth labels filter them, TranslatorAgent and JudgeAgent convert each tool call into a verified NL subproblem trace, RephraseAgent assembles a holistic NL trace, and the resulting 11.6k traces are used for LoRA SFT of Qwen2.5-MATH-7B-Instruct. Evaluation is on external benchmarks (AIME, AMC, Olympiad Bench, MATH500, GSM8K) with a 10-gram deduplication step to reduce overlap with test questions. No benchmark outcome is fed back into trace generation, filtering, or fine-tuning; no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction; and no uniqueness or equivalence theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The main limitation, as the reader's take notes, is that Table 3 compares SFT on back-translated traces only against the untrained baseline, with no control SFT on plain CoT traces, so the causal attribution of the AIME/AMC/Olympiad gains specifically to 'tool knowledge' is untested. That is an experimental confound in the paper's interpretation, not circularity, because the central comparison still tests an external benchmark against an independently constructed training set. The only self-citation (CAMEL, reference [28]) is an implementation framework and is not load-bearing for the central claim. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters are fitted to evaluation data; the method's constants are standard design choices (tool timeout 30s, step limit 15, LoRA rank 64, learning rate 2e-4). The central claim rests on the five assumptions above, especially the untested attribution of gains to tool-knowledge distillation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Filtering traces by final-answer correctness yields traces whose intermediate reasoning is also sound.
    Section 4, TIR Trace Filtering retains only traces with correct final answers; a correct final answer does not guarantee correct intermediate steps, and those intermediate steps become training supervision.
  • domain assumption Back-translated natural-language traces preserve the mathematical content of the original tool calls.
    Section 4 relies on Translator, Judge, and Rephrase agents; Judge validates per tool call, but holistic rephrased traces are never checked, and failed translations are passed through as raw tool information (Remark 1).
  • ad hoc to paper Observed benchmark improvements are caused by the distillation of tool knowledge rather than by additional SFT data.
    Section 5.1 interprets Table 3 as evidence of internalized tool knowledge, but no SFT control on non-tool traces is reported.
  • domain assumption The student model can acquire tool-like symbolic procedures from natural-language text alone without ever executing tools.
    The entire approach presupposes this transfer is possible; Section 5 tests it only indirectly via benchmark deltas.
  • standard math SymPy returns correct symbolic results.
    Section 3.1 uses SymPy as ground truth for tool outputs; if a tool returned incorrect output for some inputs, those errors propagate through filtering and back-translation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distilling Tool Knowledge into Language Models via Back-Translated Traces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2FFIX34

@misc{pith2026250619171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distilling Tool Knowledge into Language Models via Back-Translated Traces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2FFIX34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19171}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with mathematical problems that require exact computation or multi-step algebraic reasoning. Tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) offers a promising solution by leveraging external tools such as code interpreters to ensure correctness, but it introduces inference-time dependencies that hinder scalability and deployment. In this work, we propose a new paradigm for distilling tool knowledge into LLMs purely through natural language. We first construct a Solver Agent that solves math problems by interleaving planning, symbolic tool calls, and reflective reasoning. Then, using a back-translation pipeline powered by multiple LLM-based agents, we convert interleaved TIR traces into natural language reasoning traces. A Translator Agent generates explanations for individual tool calls, while a Rephrase Agent merges them into a fluent and globally coherent narrative. Empirically, we show that fine-tuning a small open-source model on these synthesized traces enables it to internalize both tool knowledge and structured reasoning patterns, yielding gains on competition-level math benchmarks without requiring tool access at inference.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large lan- guage models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large lan- guage models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2023, 2023. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=YfZ4ZPt8zd

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Mumath-code: Combining tool-use large language models with multi-perspective data augmenta- tion for mathematical reasoning

    Shuo Yin, Weihao You, Zhilong Ji, Guoqiang Zhong, and Jinfeng Bai. Mumath-code: Combining tool-use large language models with multi-perspective data augmenta- tion for mathematical reasoning. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2024, Mia...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for math- ematical problem solving

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for math- ematical problem solving. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Hao Zhou, Irene Cai, and Christopher D. Manning. Synthetic data generation & multi-step rl for reasoning & tool use, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.04736

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Torl: Scaling tool-integrated rl

    Xuefeng Li, Haoyang Zou, and Pengfei Liu. Torl: Scaling tool-integrated rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23383, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    PAL: program-aided language models

    Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. PAL: program-aided language models. In An- dreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, v...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruc- tion tuning

    Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruc- tion tuning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=yLClGs770I

    work page 2024

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reason- ing

    Ke Wang, Houxing Ren, Aojun Zhou, Zimu Lu, Sichun Luo, Weikang Shi, Renrui Zhang, Linqi Song, Mingjie Zhan, and Hongsheng Li. Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reason- ing. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Numinamath, 2024

    LI Jia, Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, Ben Lipkin, Roman Soletskyi, Shengyi Costa Huang, Kashif Rasul, Longhui Yu, Albert Jiang, Ziju Shen, et al. Numinamath, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Wizardmath: Empowering 10 mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct

    Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jianguang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. Wizardmath: Empowering 10 mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. CoRR, abs/2308.09583, 2023. doi: 10.4855...

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengy- ing Liu, Yu Zhang, James T. Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language mod- els. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa...

    2024

  5. [13]

    rstar- math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self- evolved deep thinking

    Xinyu Guan, Li Lyna Zhang, Yifei Liu, Ning Shang, Youran Sun, Yi Zhu, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang. rstar- math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self- evolved deep thinking. CoRR, abs/2501.04519, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2501.04519. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.04519

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    URL https://openre view.net/forum?id=N8N0hgNDRt

    OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openre view.net/forum?id=N8N0hgNDRt

    2024

  7. [15]

    Sympy: symbolic computing in python

    Aaron Meurer, Christopher P Smith, Mateusz Paprocki, Ondrej Certik, Sergey B Kirpichev, Matthew Rocklin, Amit Kumar, Sergiu Ivanov, Jason K Moore, Sartaj Singh, and Tal Rathnayake. Sympy: symbolic computing in python. PeerJ Computer Science, 3:e103, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junx- iao Song, Mingchuan Zhang, Y .K. Li, Y . Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathemat- ical reasoning in open language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gpt-4o: Openaiâ ˘A ´Zs new multimodal flagship model

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o: Openaiâ ˘A ´Zs new multimodal flagship model. https://openai.com/index/hello-g pt-4o/, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-22

    2024

  10. [18]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

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

    2021

  11. [19]

    Introducing gpt-4.1 in the api

    OpenAI. Introducing gpt-4.1 in the api. https://open ai.com/index/gpt-4-1/ , 2025. Accessed: 2025- 05-22

    2025

  12. [20]

    Qwen2.5- math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via self-improvement, 2024

    An Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bofei Gao, Bowen Yu, Chengpeng Li, Dayiheng Liu, Jianhong Tu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Keming Lu, Mingfeng Xue, Runji Lin, Tianyu Liu, Xingzhang Ren, and Zhenru Zhang. Qwen2.5- math technical report: Toward mathematical expert model via s...

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Unsloth: Open-source fine-tuning & training of llms, 2025

    Unsloth AI. Unsloth: Open-source fine-tuning & training of llms, 2025. URL https://github.com/unslo thai/unsloth

    2025

  14. [22]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations,

  15. [23]

    Aime 2024 dataset

    HuggingFaceH4. Aime 2024 dataset. https://hugg ingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceH4/aime _2024, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multi- modal scientific problems, 2024

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multi- modal scien...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Tang, Manan Roongta, Colin Cai, Jeffrey Luo, Li Erran Li, Raluca Ada Popa, and Ion Stoica

    Michael Luo, Sijun Tan, Justin Wong, Xiaoxiang Shi, William Y . Tang, Manan Roongta, Colin Cai, Jeffrey Luo, Li Erran Li, Raluca Ada Popa, and Ion Stoica. Deepscaler: Surpassing o1-preview with a 1.5b model by scaling rl,

  18. [26]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christo- pher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Math-verify

    HuggingFace. Math-verify. https://github.com /huggingface/Math- Verify , 2023. Accessed: 2025-05-24

    2023

  20. [28]

    AMC23 Dataset

    math-ai. AMC23 Dataset. https://huggingface. co/datasets/math-ai/amc23, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Wolframalpha

    Wolfram Alpha LLC. Wolframalpha. https://www. wolframalpha.com/. Accessed: 2025-05-24. 11 Misuse of Tool (10.29%) Error in Tool Usage (7.35%) Did Not Use Tool (22.06%) Did Not Follow Tool (1.47%) Lack of Tool (8.82%) Tool Limitation (11.76%) Precision Loss (4.41%) Overcomplica...

    2025

  22. [31]

    Camel: Commu- nicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society

    Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Commu- nicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  23. [33]

    Tool Awareness via Documentation and Signatures.Models often misuse tools due to incomplete understanding of their behavior. Providing structured tool documentation, function signatures, and example usages-either via system prompts or training corpora-can help models align too...

  24. [34]

    Incorporatingplanningmodules that decide when and how to invoke tools can lead to more coherent reasoning traces

    Planning.Errors in reasoning often arise from premature or inappropriate tool calls, especially for complex questions. Incorporatingplanningmodules that decide when and how to invoke tools can lead to more coherent reasoning traces. 13

  25. [35]

    Models should learn to call a tool, interpret its output, reflect on its relevance, and adapt their next step accordingly

    Interactive and Reflective Tool Use.Effective mathematical reasoning requires tools to be used iteratively-not in a single forward pass. Models should learn to call a tool, interpret its output, reflect on its relevance, and adapt their next step accordingly. This loop of tool...

  26. [36]

    Standardizing representations and enforcing validation layers around tool interfaces could minimize such semantic mismatches

    Unified Representations for Tool I/O.Inconsistent input/output handling (e.g., misinterpreting radians vs degrees) contributes to tool misuse. Standardizing representations and enforcing validation layers around tool interfaces could minimize such semantic mismatches

  27. [37]

    Expanding Tool Coverage.Existing toolkits primarily support algebraic and calculus-based operations, limiting their applicability across diverse mathematical domains. To improve generality, future systems should integrate tools that support a wider range of reasoning tasks, in...

  28. [38]

    We want to find how many circles of radius 3 can be tangent to both \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \)

    **Understand the problem setup **: We have two circles \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \) of radius 1, tangent to each other. We want to find how many circles of radius 3 can be tangent to both \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \)

  29. [39]

    For example, place \( C_1 \) at the origin and \( C_2 \) at (2,0) since they are tangent and each has radius 1

    **Set up coordinate system and variables **: Place \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \) in the coordinate plane for convenience. For example, place \( C_1 \) at the origin and \( C_2 \) at (2,0) since they are tangent and each has radius 1

  30. [40]

    **Express conditions for tangency **: - The circle of radius 3 must be tangent to both \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \). - Use the distance between centers condition: the distance between the center of the new circle and the center of \( C_1 \) must be either 3 + 1 = 4 (external tangen...

  31. [41]

    Write equations for the distances from \((x,y)\) to the centers of \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \) equal to 4 or 2, depending on tangency type

    **Formulate equations **: Let the center of the new circle be \((x,y)\). Write equations for the distances from \((x,y)\) to the centers of \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \) equal to 4 or 2, depending on tangency type

  32. [42]

    **Solve the system of equations **: Use algebraic or geometric methods to find all possible \((x,y)\) that satisfy the tangency conditions

  33. [43]

    sympy_equations

    **Count the number of solutions **: The number of valid \((x,y)\) solutions corresponds to the number of circles of radius 3 tangent to both \( C_1 \) and \( C_2 \). Tools to use: - **Coordinate geometry **: To set up the problem in a coordinate plane and express conditions as...

  34. [44]

    Both distances are 4: \[ (x-0)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 4^2 = 16 \] \[ (x-2)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 4^2 = 16 \] Solutions: \((1, \sqrt{15})\) and \((1, -\sqrt{15})\)

  35. [45]

    Distance to \( C_1 \) is 4, distance to \( C_2 \) is 2: \[ (x-0)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 16 \] \[ (x-2)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 4 \] Solution: \((4,0)\)

  36. [46]

    Distance to \( C_1 \) is 2, distance to \( C_2 \) is 4: \[ (x-0)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 4 \] \[ (x-2)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 16 \] Solution: \((-2,0)\)

  37. [47]

    "sympy_equations

    Both distances are 2: \[ (x-0)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 4 \] \[ (x-2)^2 + (y-0)^2 = 4 \] Solutions: \((1, \sqrt{3})\) and \((1, -\sqrt{3})\). Thus, the possible centers of the new circle are: \[ (1, \sqrt{15}), (1, -\sqrt{15}), (4,0), (-2,0), (1, \sqrt{3}), (1, -\sqrt{3}) \] Each corresp...

  38. [51]

    "sympy_equations

    ((x - 2)^2 + y^2 = 16) --- ### Step 2: Analyze the system These are equations of two circles: - Circle 1: Center at ((0,0)), radius (4) - Circle 2: Center at ((2,0)), radius (4) We want to find the points ((x,y)) where these two circles intersect. --- ### Step 3: Subtract the ...

  39. [52]

    ((x - 0)^2 + (y - 0)^2 - 4^2 = 0)

  40. [54]

    (x^2 + y^2 = 16) (since (4^2 = 16))

  41. [55]

    "result"

    ((x - 2)^2 + y^2 = 4) (since (2^2 = 4)) --- ### Step 2: Express the system \[ \begin{cases} x^2 + y^2 = 16 \\ (x - 2)^2 + y^2 = 4 \end{cases} \] --- ### Step 3: Subtract the second equation from the first to eliminate (y^2) \[ (x^2 + y^2) - ((x - 2)^2 + y^2) = 16 - 4 \] Simpli...

  42. [57]

    ((x - 2)^2 + (y - 0)^2 - 4^2 = 0) Variables: (x, y) --- ### Step 1: Rewrite the equations clearly

  43. [59]

    "sympy_equations

    ((x - 2)^2 + y^2 = 16) (since (4^2 = 16)) --- ### Step 2: Express the system explicitly \[ \begin{cases} x^2 + y^2 = 4 \\ (x - 2)^2 + y^2 = 16 \end{cases} \] --- ### Step 3: Subtract the first equation from the second to eliminate (y^2) \[ (x - 2)^2 + y^2 - (x^2 + y^2) = 16 - ...

  44. [60]

    ((x - 0)^2 + (y - 0)^2 - 2^2 = 0)

  45. [61]

    ((x - 2)^2 + (y - 0)^2 - 2^2 = 0) Variables: (x, y) --- ### Step 1: Rewrite the equations clearly

  46. [62]

    (x^2 + y^2 = 4) (since (2^2 = 4))

  47. [63]

    result"‘ field. If an error occurs, the ‘

    ((x - 2)^2 + y^2 = 4) --- ### Step 2: Analyze the system - The first equation represents a circle centered at ((0,0)) with radius 2. - The second equation represents a circle centered at ((2,0)) with radius 2. We want to find the points ((x,y)) where these two circles intersec...

    2022

  48. [64]

    The pink frog weighs the same as the blue disgosition: \[ F = B \]

  49. [65]

    The blue disgosition weighs the same as the green toad: \[ B = G \]

  50. [66]

    The green toad weighs 10 pounds less than the yellow snake: \[ G = S - 10 \]

  51. [67]

    The yellow snake weighs 20 pounds more than the red bird: \[ S = R + 20 \]

  52. [68]

    The pink frog weighs 50 pounds: \[ F = 50 \] **Step 3: Use the known value to find the other weights. ** From \( F = 50 \), and since \( F = B \), we have: \[ B = 50 \] Since \( B = G \), we also have: \[ G = 50 \] Using \( G = S - 10 \), substitute \( G = 50 \): 42 \[ 50 = S ...

  53. [69]

    **Weight of the pink frog **: Given as 50 pounds

  54. [70]

    **Weight of the blue beetle **: The blue beetle weighs the same as the pink frog, so it also weighs 50 pounds

  55. [71]

    **Weight of the green toad **: The green toad weighs the same as the pink frog, so it also weighs 50 pounds

  56. [72]

    Therefore, the weight of the yellow snake is: \[ 50 + 10 = 60 \text{ pounds} \]

    **Weight of the yellow snake **: The yellow snake weighs 10 pounds more than the pink frog. Therefore, the weight of the yellow snake is: \[ 50 + 10 = 60 \text{ pounds} \]

  57. [73]

    **Weight of the red bird **: The red bird weighs 20 pounds less than the pink frog. Therefore, the weight of the red bird is: \[ 50 - 20 = 30 \text{ pounds} \] Now, we sum the weights of all the animals and the container: \[ 50 \text{ (pink frog)} + 50 \text{ (blue beetle)} + ...

  58. [2022]

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?i d=nZeVKeeFYf9

  59. [2024]

    URL https://openre view.net/forum?id=z8TW0ttBPp

    OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openre view.net/forum?id=z8TW0ttBPp

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.