pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02054 · v1 · pith:RZT6ERN5new · submitted 2026-06-01 · 💻 cs.AI

eMoT: evolving Memory-of-Thought via Symbolic Anchoring and Memory Corrosion

Xiang Li , Jiwei Wei , Ke Liu , Yitong Qin , Jinyu Guo , Malu Zhang , Peng Wang , Yang Yang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 14:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords LLM reasoningmemory mechanismssymbolic anchoringchain-of-thoughtmulti-step reasoningGame of 24evolving memories
0
0 comments X

The pith

By evolving reasoning trajectories as dynamic memories reinforced by corrosion and anchored in symbolic computation, LLMs achieve more reliable multi-step reasoning even with small models.

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

The paper introduces eMoT to address hallucinations and numerical errors in LLMs by retaining and refining successful reasoning procedures instead of generating them anew each time. It does this through a memory corrosion process that strengthens useful logic patterns while fading others, a symbolic engine using Python for exact calculations, and a refinement step that keeps neural outputs consistent with symbolic results. This approach yields higher accuracy and consistency on benchmarks including perfect scores on the Game of 24 puzzle. The authors show these improvements hold with lightweight models, arguing the gains stem from the structured control rather than model scale.

Core claim

The eMoT framework treats reasoning trajectories as dynamic, evolving memories. It stabilizes multi-step reasoning via three modules: memory corrosion that reinforces high-utility structures while decaying infrequent ones, a symbolic anchoring engine using Python for deterministic computation, and a consistency-driven refinement process that aligns neural inference with symbolic outcomes.

What carries the argument

The eMoT framework's three interconnected modules of memory corrosion, symbolic anchoring, and consistency-driven refinement, which turn transient reasoning into retained and refined procedural logic.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains are fundamentally driven by the eMoT framework's reasoning control rather than sheer model size or other unstated implementation details.

What would settle it

Running the same lightweight model with and without the full eMoT components on the Game of 24 task and observing whether accuracy drops to baseline levels when any module is removed would test the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02054 by Jinyu Guo, Jiwei Wei, Ke Liu, Malu Zhang, Peng Wang, Xiang Li, Yang Yang, Yitong Qin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of eMoT. eMoT mitigates structural drift, intermediate errors, and hallucinated reasoning steps by integrating memory corrosion, symbolic anchoring via Python execution, and consistency-driven refinement. Memory control reinforces high-utility reasoning patterns (+α) while applying global decay ((1 − γ)) to forget stale or low-utility memories, enabling stable and self￾evolving multi-step reasonin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Worked example of eMoT. The model produces a memory-guided candidate answer and a code-guided symbolic answer, which are reconciled through consistency-driven refinement; the outcome updates the evolving memory repository. 3.2.2 Schema Retrieval via RAG. Each procedural schema si ∈ S is stored together with a dense embedding representation computed from its textual description. Given the distilled task inf… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: At each time step, retrieved schemas are reinforced ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: End-to-end reasoning trace for a comparative quantity problem (ASDiv). Mechanistic Insight. This example highlights how eMoT elegantly separates problem parsing (distillation) from deterministic computation (symbolic anchoring). Meanwhile, the procedural memory provides an abstract solution pattern (comparative quantity) without overfitting to or copying instance-specific values. A.2 A Boundary-Condition E… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Boundary-condition example from GSM-Hard highlighting formal correctness vs human plausibility. reasoning under unrealistic conditions. In such settings, mathematically correct answers may naturally conflict with human commonsense expectations. This example should therefore be interpreted as a boundary-condition evaluation of symbolic correctness, underscoring eMoT’s capacity to prioritize formal task spec… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Symbolic code execution failure with neural fallback and refinement recovery. versibly corrupts the entire downstream solution—symbolic anchoring in eMoT typically involves a single-pass code synthesis. This flat generation structure drastically reduces the probability of cascad￾ing logical failures. When synthesis errors do occur, they are isolated to the code generation step itself. The refinement module… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on multi-step reasoning tasks, their reliability is persistently hindered by critical limitations such as unconstrained hallucinations and poor numerical computation. Fundamentally, these issues arise because standard models treat reasoning as a transient, one-off generation process rather than retaining and refining successful procedural logic. To address these challenges, we propose eMoT (evolving Memory-of-Thought), a unified framework that stabilizes multi-step reasoning by treating reasoning trajectories as dynamic, evolving memories rather than static templates. The framework primarily consists of three interconnected modules: (i) a memory corrosion mechanism that reinforces high-utility reasoning structures while gradually decaying less frequent ones; (ii) a symbolic anchoring engine that utilizes Python for deterministic computation, much like a human uses a calculator; and (iii) a consistency-driven refinement process that aligns neural inference with symbolic outcomes, reducing the accumulation of logical discrepancies. Across multiple reasoning benchmarks, eMoT improves accuracy and solution consistency over standard Chain-of-Thought and structured reasoning baselines.On the traditional task Game of 24, eMoT achieves 100% accuracy, surpassing the baseline by up to 17.6%. Evaluations on mathematical task GSM8K, ASDiv, SVAMP, and MGSM further show consistent gains in multi-step mathematical reasoning. In our evaluation, we achieve superior performance despite utilizing a lightweight backbone model with constrained baseline capabilities. Compared to alternative methods that rely on massively scaled models, our results demonstrate that the performance gains are fundamentally driven by the eMoT framework's reasoning control rather than sheer model size.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes eMoT, a framework that treats LLM reasoning trajectories as dynamic evolving memories rather than one-off generations. It comprises three modules—a memory corrosion mechanism to reinforce high-utility structures while decaying others, a symbolic anchoring engine that invokes Python for deterministic computation, and a consistency-driven refinement process to align neural and symbolic outcomes. The central claim is that this yields accuracy and consistency gains over Chain-of-Thought and structured-reasoning baselines on Game of 24 (100% accuracy, up to +17.6%), GSM8K, ASDiv, SVAMP, and MGSM, using only a lightweight backbone whose constrained capabilities are explicitly contrasted with massively scaled models; gains are attributed to the framework's reasoning control.

Significance. If the experimental attribution holds under controlled conditions, the approach could demonstrate a scalable route to more reliable multi-step reasoning that does not require model scaling, by combining memory evolution with symbolic grounding. The absence of any reported controls, model identifiers, or ablation details currently prevents assessment of whether the claimed separation from model size is real.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph): the claim that 'performance gains are fundamentally driven by the eMoT framework's reasoning control rather than sheer model size' is unsupported because no model identifier, parameter count, or statement is given that every baseline (CoT, structured reasoning) was re-run with identical weights and decoding settings. Without this control the causal link to the three modules cannot be isolated.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: benchmark results (including 100% on Game of 24) are reported without any description of experimental controls, baseline implementations, statistical significance testing, or how the memory-corrosion, symbolic-anchoring, and consistency-refinement modules interact at runtime. This renders the central empirical claim unverifiable from the provided text.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a missing space: 'baselines.On the traditional task'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying points where the abstract requires additional detail to support its claims. We will revise the abstract and, where needed, the main text to incorporate the requested information on model identifiers, experimental controls, and module interactions. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph): the claim that 'performance gains are fundamentally driven by the eMoT framework's reasoning control rather than sheer model size' is unsupported because no model identifier, parameter count, or statement is given that every baseline (CoT, structured reasoning) was re-run with identical weights and decoding settings. Without this control the causal link to the three modules cannot be isolated.

    Authors: We agree the abstract statement is insufficiently supported as written. The full manuscript describes the use of a single lightweight backbone for all methods, with baselines re-implemented under identical weights, decoding parameters, and prompt formats. To make this explicit, we will revise the abstract to name the model, state the parameter count, and confirm that every baseline was evaluated with the same weights and settings. This revision will allow the attribution to the three modules to be assessed directly from the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: benchmark results (including 100% on Game of 24) are reported without any description of experimental controls, baseline implementations, statistical significance testing, or how the memory-corrosion, symbolic-anchoring, and consistency-refinement modules interact at runtime. This renders the central empirical claim unverifiable from the provided text.

    Authors: The abstract is deliberately concise, yet we accept that key methodological details must be present for the claims to be verifiable. The full paper contains dedicated sections on experimental setup, baseline re-implementations, module runtime interactions, and significance testing. We will add a short clause to the abstract summarizing these controls and the module interaction protocol, while retaining the 100% Game of 24 result. This change will render the central empirical claim verifiable from the abstract itself. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in claimed derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes an empirical framework (eMoT) consisting of three modules and reports benchmark accuracy gains on tasks like Game of 24 and GSM8K. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. The central claim that gains stem from the framework rather than model size is an empirical assertion, not a mathematical reduction that loops back to its inputs by construction. The work is self-contained as an experimental proposal evaluated against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unverified assertion that the three modules produce the reported gains independently of model scale; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are quantified in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Reasoning trajectories can be usefully treated as dynamic, evolving memories rather than transient generations.
    Stated in the second sentence of the abstract as the fundamental premise.
invented entities (2)
  • memory corrosion mechanism no independent evidence
    purpose: Reinforce high-utility reasoning structures while decaying less frequent ones.
    Introduced as module (i) in the abstract; no independent evidence supplied.
  • symbolic anchoring engine no independent evidence
    purpose: Utilize Python for deterministic computation.
    Introduced as module (ii) in the abstract; no independent evidence supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5837 in / 1417 out tokens · 20251 ms · 2026-06-28T14:13:45.982540+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  2. [2]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1–113, 2023

    Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1–113, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher

    Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    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 language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning

    Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. InThe 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL 2023), 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Language models don’t always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952–74965, 2023

    Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. Language models don’t always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952–74965, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models

    Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. InFindings of the association for computational linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 3563–3578, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    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. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10764–10799. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  11. [11]

    Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:3843–3857, 2022

    Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:3843–3857, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11738, 2023. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pages 17682–17690, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Buffer of thoughts: Thought-augmented reasoning with large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113519–113544, 2024

    Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Tianjun Zhang, Shiyi Cao, Minkai Xu, Wentao Zhang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Bin Cui. Buffer of thoughts: Thought-augmented reasoning with large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113519–113544, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Robustfill: Neural program learning under noisy i/o

    Jacob Devlin, Jonathan Uesato, Surya Bhupatiraju, Rishabh Singh, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, and Pushmeet Kohli. Robustfill: Neural program learning under noisy i/o. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 990–998. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  19. [19]

    Program Synthesis with Large Language Models

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Reasoning on graphs: Faithful and interpretable large language model reasoning

    L Luo, YF Li, G Haffari, and S Pan. Reasoning on graphs: Faithful and interpretable large language model reasoning. InICLR 2024: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Complex logical reasoning over knowledge graphs using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01157, 2023

    Nurendra Choudhary and Chandan K Reddy. Complex logical reasoning over knowledge graphs using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01157, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Graph-augmented reasoning: Evolving step-by-step knowledge graph retrieval for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01642, 2025

    Wenjie Wu, Yongcheng Jing, Yingjie Wang, Wenbin Hu, and Dacheng Tao. Graph-augmented reasoning: Evolving step-by-step knowledge graph retrieval for llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01642, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Neurosymbolic ai: The 3 rd wave.Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(11):12387–12406, 2023

    Artur d’Avila Garcez and Luis C Lamb. Neurosymbolic ai: The 3 rd wave.Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(11):12387–12406, 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46534–46594, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models

    Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Beyond chain-of-thought: A survey of chain-of-x paradigms for llms

    Yu Xia, Rui Wang, Xu Liu, Mingyan Li, Tong Yu, Xiang Chen, Julian McAuley, and Shuai Li. Beyond chain-of-thought: A survey of chain-of-x paradigms for llms. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 10795–10809, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Vipergpt: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning

    Dídac Surís, Sachit Menon, and Carl V ondrick. Vipergpt: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 11888– 11898, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Neural Turing Machines

    Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, and Ivo Danihelka. Neural turing machines.arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.5401, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Meta- learning with memory-augmented neural networks

    Adam Santoro, Sergey Bartunov, Matthew Botvinick, Daan Wierstra, and Timothy Lillicrap. Meta- learning with memory-augmented neural networks. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1842–1850. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  31. [31]

    Contextual memory trees

    Wen Sun, Alina Beygelzimer, Hal Daumé Iii, John Langford, and Paul Mineiro. Contextual memory trees. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6026–6035. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  32. [32]

    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, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers

    Shen-Yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. InProceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 975–984, 2020

    2020

  34. [34]

    Are NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems?

    Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. Are nlp models really able to solve simple math word problems?arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191, 2021. 12 Supplementary Material A. Qualitative Examples A.1 A Correct Example from ASDiv: Comparative Quantity.We illustrate a representative instance where eMoT solves a comparative quantity problem via structu...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    So according to the distilled information, emphasize the real-world rules that need to be followed within the problem.)

    Restriction: (It should be noted that the answer should strictly follow real-world rules such as in arithmetic equations, the Priority of operators, the need for parentheses, etc. So according to the distilled information, emphasize the real-world rules that need to be followed within the problem.)

  36. [36]

    Python transformation: (Optional, skip when Python tag is Not for Python) Input parameters: (The names of each variable should be clear and not confusing, and correspond to the entity names in the problem) variable1_name = x variable2_name = y variableN_name = z

  37. [37]

    Prompt for Symbolic Anchoring You are an expert in mathematical problem solving and symbolic reasoning

    Answer form: (Optional, skip when there is no specific answer form) B.2. Prompt for Symbolic Anchoring You are an expert in mathematical problem solving and symbolic reasoning. You will receive: 1.Distilled Information:a structured summary of a math word problem (variables, quantities, and task goals). 2.Memory (RAG):a collection of generalized reasoning ...

  38. [38]

    Use this memory to generate afully executable Python code snippetthat computes the correct numeric answer

  39. [39]

    - Befully self-contained(noinput(),import,random, or external calls)

    The generated code must: - Useonlythe variables and numeric values explicitly provided in the distilled information. - Befully self-contained(noinput(),import,random, or external calls). - Beclean, minimal, and deterministic- only arithmetic, logic, and assignment operations are allowed. - End with a singleprint(<final_answer_variable_or_expression>)statement

  40. [40]

    Donotinclude explanations, reasoning, or comments

  41. [41]

    Do not output anything except the Python code block

    Theentire outputmust be wrapped strictly in triple backticks with a python tag. Do not output anything except the Python code block. B.3. Prompt for Consistency-Driven Refinement You are an expert reasoning analyst. The following is a distilled thought template and original reasoning result. Task:

  42. [42]

    Analyze the quantitative relationships and solution strategy from the thought template

  43. [43]

    Perform correct calculations based on the relationships

  44. [44]

    Compare with the original reasoning result and template result

  45. [45]

    we were unable to find the license for the dataset we used

    Output only the correct numeric answer. Final Refined Result:<your numeric answer> 16 NeurIPS Paper Checklist The checklist is designed to encourage best practices for responsible machine learning research, addressing issues of reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. Do not remove the checklist:The papers not including the che...

  46. [46]

    Guidelines: • The answer [N/A] means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...