Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 35 references

CodeSteer: Symbolic-Augmented Language Models via Code/Text Guidance

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An 8B 'steering' model lifts GPT-4o past o1 on 37 symbolic tasks by choosing when to code

desk verdict A useful benchmark and a sensible steering pipeline, but the 'beats o1' claim leans on a GPT-4o verifier that the baseline never got. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04350 v2 pith:OQ2DRZO7 submitted 2025-02-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LGcs.SCcs.SE

Yongchao Chen , Yilun Hao , Yueying Liu , Yang Zhang , Chuchu Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LGcs.SCcs.SE
keywords CodeSteercode/textguidancesymboliccomputingmulti-turnsteeringdirectpreferenceoptimizationSymBenchLLMfine-tuninggeneration
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

CodeSteer is a method for making large language models use symbolic computing: a fine-tuned 8B guidance model watches each answer a big model produces and tells it, turn by turn, whether to reason in text, write code, or switch strategy, then decides when to stop. The paper builds SymBench, 37 symbolic tasks with adjustable complexity, and uses GPT-4o to synthesize 12k multi-turn guidance trajectories and 5.5k preference pairs for training. On this benchmark, guiding GPT-4o with CodeSteer raises its average normalized score from 53.3 to 86.4, above OpenAI o1 (82.7), o1-preview (74.8), and DeepSeek R1 (76.8), and the gains hold on 9 tasks never seen in training. A reader should care because it suggests that a relatively small, trainable steering module, rather than a bigger reasoner, can unlock capabilities that current chain-of-thought-specialized models miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is CodeSteerLLM, a Llama-3.1-8B model fine-tuned in two stages: multi-turn supervised fine-tuning on 12k GPT-4o-generated trajectories, then direct preference optimization on 5.5k guidance pairs scored by a rule that rewards correct answers in fewer turns. Around it sit two checkers: a rule-based Symbolic Checker that scores generated code for iteration, search, numerics, permutations, and combinations, and a Self-answer Checker that asks the TaskLLM to write and run verification code. Together they let the 8B model decide the initial method, adapt between code and text, and finalize answers, addressing the paper's observed failure that LLMs often write text-like code that hard-codes answers rather than performing symbolic computation.

What would settle it

Generate a fresh set of SymBench-style test questions with an independent question generator that was not used to train CodeSteerLLM, then compare average normalized scores for GPT-4o plus CodeSteer, GPT-4o alone, and o1 on the same 100-sample-per-task split; if the CodeSteer-guided score no longer beats o1 or the internal gain over GPT-4o disappears, the reported results depend on the training distribution rather than on the steering method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an 8B model trained only to guide, not to solve, can make a larger model choose the right tool, code or text, for symbolic tasks, and can adapt that choice as it sees outputs. CodeSteer runs up to five turns: each turn it reviews the task, the latest answer, and history, then emits a guidance prompt; a symbolic checker summarizes code complexity and a self-answer checker verifies answers by asking the task model to write checking code. Trained with multi-turn SFT followed by DPO on GPT-4o-generated trajectories, CodeSteerLLM raises GPT-4o from 53.3 to 86.4 on the average normalized score across all 37 SymBench tasks, including a larger relative gain on unseen tasks, and beats the best chain-of-thought models in the comparison. The same trained guide also transfers to Claude, Mistral, and GPT-3.5, giving an average 41.8-point boost on five representative tasks, and it even improves o1 on five randomly chosen unseen tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 12k SFT trajectories and 5.5k DPO pairs, synthesized by GPT-4o as both teacher and solver and filtered only for answer correctness, teach an 8B model a steering policy that transfers across tasks and across target LLMs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Guiding GPT-4o with CodeSteer yields an 88.1 average normalized score on the 28 seen tasks and 81.3 on 9 unseen tasks, so the steering policy is not simply memorizing training questions.
  • CodeSteer-guided GPT-4o outperforms every training-free and training-based baseline on the 37-task average, including Code Interpreter (70.5) and the best training-based baseline, Code/Text Choice (77.9).
  • Because CodeSteer transfers to Claude, Mistral, and GPT-3.5 without retraining, the learned code-versus-text policy is not tied to GPT-4o itself.
  • CodeSteer also boosts o1 on five unseen tasks, with per-task gains such as Cryptanalysis from 60 to 73 and Synthesis Decomposition from 57 to 94, implying that even reasoning-specialized models leave symbolic gains on the table.
  • CodeSteer sustains performance on high-complexity task variants where o1, o1-preview, and GPT-4o fail, because code execution handles combinatorial search without endless textual iteration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gains replicate outside SymBench, the same 8B-guide architecture could steer models in other domains where verification is cheap, such as data transformation or constraint solving, without retraining the large model.
  • The DPO tree-score rule in Equation (1) is a generic estimate of downstream expected success, so it should transfer to any multi-turn agent trajectory collection, not just code-versus-text choices.
  • The transfer results suggest CodeSteerLLM has learned task structure rather than model-specific quirks; a natural test is whether the guidance can be distilled into a fixed prompt or a small rule set, removing the fine-tuned component entirely.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CodeSteer, a framework that augments a large 'TaskLLM' (GPT-4o or others) with a small fine-tuned Llama-3.1-8B model (CodeSteerLLM) that emits multi-turn guidance choosing between textual reasoning and code generation. The authors release SymBench, a benchmark of 37 symbolic tasks with adjustable complexity, and synthesize 12k multi-turn guidance trajectories (SFT) and 5.5k preference pairs (DPO). The guided GPT-4o is reported to improve its average normalized score from 53.3 to 86.4, surpassing o1 (82.7), o1-preview (74.8), and DeepSeek R1 (76.8) on the aggregate benchmark, with a claimed average 41.8-point gain on Claude, Mistral, and GPT-3.5 across five tasks. The framework includes a rule-based Symbolic Checker and a Self-answer Checker that re-queries the TaskLLM to verify its answer via code execution.

Significance. The paper's strengths are the release of a reusable symbolic-task benchmark with controllable complexity, the detailed SFT/DPO training pipeline for multi-turn guidance, and an extensive baseline comparison with non-normalized versions in the appendix. If the headline results are robust, the idea that a small steering model can substantially improve a larger model's code/text selection is practically interesting. However, the central comparison to o1 is not yet convincingly attributed to the proposed steering policy because the Self-answer Checker ablation removes most of the advantage. The paper still represents a useful contribution in methodology and resources, but the significance of the claimed 'outperforms o1' result depends on resolving this confound.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 4; §3, Appendix E] The headline claim that GPT-4o + CodeSteer outperforms o1 (86.4 vs. 82.7) is confounded by the Self-answer Checker. Ablating this checker (column 5 of Table 4) drops the average normalized total from 86.4 to 75.0, which is below o1 (82.7) and below the single-step Code/Text Choice baseline (77.9, Table 1). Because the Self-answer Checker invokes GPT-4o to write and execute verification code for the TaskLLM's answer, the comparison is not controlled for the use of an extra verification mechanism that o1 and the other baselines do not have. The authors should provide a version of the comparison where o1 (or the other baselines) is given a comparable self-answer verification loop, or at least present the self-answer checker as an independent contribution and clearly separate its effect from the learned multi-turn guidance policy.
  2. [Abstract; Table 1] The abstract states that CodeSteer outperforms o1 'across all 37 tasks.' This is not supported by the per-task results in Table 1: o1 achieves higher success rates than GPT-4o + CodeSteer on several tasks, including BoxLift (95 vs. 77), BoxNet (45 vs. 29), and Blocksworld (100 vs. 52). The claim is only about the average normalized score over the benchmark, and should be worded as such (e.g., 'on average over 37 tasks') to avoid overstating per-task superiority.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (2)] No confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are reported for the aggregate average normalized scores. With 100 samples per task and a headline margin of only 3.7 normalized points (86.4 vs. 82.7), it is unclear whether the difference against o1 is statistically meaningful; the margin is driven by a subset of tasks, and the per-task results in Table 1 show several tasks where CodeSteer underperforms o1. The authors should report bootstrap confidence intervals or per-task variance for the main comparisons.
  4. [§5.2, Table 2] The generalizability claim (average 41.8 boost on Claude, Mistral, and GPT-3.5) is based on only five hand-picked tasks, two where text outperforms code and three where code is superior. This selection is not a representative sample of the 37-task benchmark, and the resulting 'Ave. Norm. Score' is not comparable to the full-benchmark averages elsewhere. The claim of 'superior generalizability' is disproportionate to the evidence; either expand the generalization evaluation to a larger set of tasks or temper the claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The 'multi-turn gradient cancellation' issue is described informally; an explicit example of how opposite SFT gradients cancel in the early turns would help the reader understand the proposed solution.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The constants 15−i and −i in the final-turn score are not motivated; a brief explanation of why these values were chosen (e.g., how they balance turn length against correctness) would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Table 2] The header 'Ave. Norm. Score' for the five-task generalization table is ambiguous; clarify that it is the normalized average over those five tasks only, not the full SymBench average.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: the reported gain is an empirical result with external baselines and held-out evaluation; only minor non-load-bearing self-citation in benchmark provenance.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical, not formal. SymBench is assembled from prior tasks, including 14 from the authors' own Chen et al. 2025 (Section 2 and Appendix C: 'The first 14 tasks originate from Chen et al. (2025)'), but the tasks have objective success criteria and are benchmarked against external models (o1, R1, o1-preview) on the same questions; no equation maps the training objective into the headline score. The DPO preference score in Eq. (1) is a heuristic for ordering guidance trajectories and is not fitted to the test-set AveNorm values, and Eq. (2) is a standard max-normalization. The SFT/DPO data are synthesized by GPT-4o as both teacher and solver, which is a data-quality and generalization risk, but evaluation uses held-out samples and 9 unseen task types, and transfer is tested on Claude/Mistral/GPT-3.5, so the result does not reduce to its input by construction. The Table 4 ablation shows that removing the Self-answer Checker drops the total score from 86.4 to 75.0, below o1's 82.7; this weakens the attribution of the headline advantage to the learned steering policy and is a comparison confound, but the checker is an inference-time verifier, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, so it is a correctness risk rather than circularity. Minor self-citation also appears in the baseline list ('methods 1, 3–6, and 9 originally proposed in Chen et al. (2025)'), but the central fine-tuning result does not depend on that citation for its validity. No step satisfies the standard of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter called a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters (DPO score constants, thresholds, turn caps) and on assumptions about the reliability of GPT-4o-generated training data and self-verification. These are not derived from first principles or tuned with sensitivity analysis. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the checkers are software components, evaluated by ablation.

free parameters (7)
  • Final-turn score constants in DPO label = 15 - i (correct), -i (incorrect)
    Hand-chosen in Eq. (1) to prioritize early correct answers. Directly determines which guidance pairs are preferred in the 5.5k DPO set.
  • DPO pair score-difference threshold = 2
    Only guidance pairs with score difference > 2 are selected. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • SFT final-two-turn reweighting = 2x weight on final two turns
    Chosen to counter multi-turn gradient cancellation (Sec. 4.1). The doubling factor is not tuned.
  • Symbolic Checker complexity threshold = 2.0
    Code with complexity score below 2.0 receives a warning (Appendix F). Hand-set without analysis.
  • Maximum guidance turns = 5
    Interactions are capped at 5 turns. This cap directly affects success rate and token cost.
  • DPO sampling temperature = 1.5
    Used to generate diverse guidance candidates for DPO pairs. Not reported as tuned.
  • DPO beta = 0.1
    Standard sigmoid DPO loss uses beta=0.1 (Appendix H). Not tuned.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SFT and DPO on synthetic data yield a model that generalizes to unseen tasks and other LLMs.
    The entire method rests on this; tested only on 9 unseen task types and 5 tasks on 3 other models.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o can act as a reliable teacher for synthesizing correct guidance trajectories.
    Section 4.1 uses GPT-4o as both guide and solver, then filters to correct trajectories. Any teacher bias is inherited.
  • ad hoc to paper The recursive expectation in Eq. (1) (average of child scores) is a valid proxy for the future value of a guidance node.
    Eq. (1) defines non-final node score as the average of child scores; this is a design choice, not a theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper The Symbolic Checker's heuristics (loops, search, permutations, etc.) correlate with code quality.
    Appendix F lists the detected factors; the mapping to a complexity score is manual.
  • domain assumption The Self-answer Checker's verification via re-querying the TaskLLM is reliable.
    Section 3: the checker asks the same fallible model to verify its own answer with code. Partially ablated in Table 4, but not independently validated.
  • standard math Standard backpropagation, loss functions, and expectation arithmetic behave as expected.
    Background for SFT/DPO training.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CodeSteer: Symbolic-Augmented Language Models via Code/Text Guidance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQ2DRZO7

@misc{pith2026250204350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CodeSteer: Symbolic-Augmented Language Models via Code/Text Guidance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQ2DRZO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04350}
}
read the original abstract

Existing methods fail to effectively steer Large Language Models (LLMs) between textual reasoning and code generation, leaving symbolic computing capabilities underutilized. We introduce CodeSteer, an effective method for guiding LLM code/text generation. We construct a comprehensive benchmark SymBench comprising 37 symbolic tasks with adjustable complexity and also synthesize datasets of 12k multi-turn guidance/generation trajectories and 5.5k guidance comparison pairs. We fine-tune the Llama-3-8B model with a newly designed multi-turn supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and direct preference optimization (DPO). The resulting model, CodeSteerLLM, augmented with the proposed symbolic and self-answer checkers, effectively guides the code/text generation of larger models. Augmenting GPT-4o with CodeSteer raises its average performance score from 53.3 to 86.4, even outperforming the existing best LLM OpenAI o1 (82.7), o1-preview (74.8), and DeepSeek R1 (76.8) across all 37 tasks (28 seen, 9 unseen). Trained for GPT-4o, CodeSteer demonstrates superior generalizability, providing an average 41.8 performance boost on Claude, Mistral, and GPT-3.5. CodeSteer-guided LLMs fully harness symbolic computing to maintain strong performance on highly complex tasks. Models, Datasets, and Codes are available at https://github.com/yongchao98/CodeSteer-v1.0 and https://huggingface.co/yongchao98.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples and performance of CodeSteer on guiding LLM code/text generation to integrate symbolic computing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of multi-turn DPO data sampling: blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized score distribution of CodeSteer+GPT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Score vs. token and runtime costs for each method, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Method performance across four representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cases that GPT-4o makes simple mistakes by direct textual reasoning but can reliably solve the problem with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative answers of BoxLift task. The left figure is the partially correct answer of GPT-4o with All Text + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GPT-4o Code Interpreter tends to handle simple Number Multiplying tasks with text and complex tasks with code. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Representative code answers of Game 24 task. The left figure is the correct code of GPT-4o with extra AutoGen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Code for checking the symbolic factors of the generated code by TaskLLM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example text answer of R1 in the task Game 24. R1 searches possible answers with the continuous back-and-forth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example text answer of GPT-4o in the task Game 24. GPT-4o continues the textual reasoning process until [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Permutation and CombinationGiven a set of objects with specific positioning constraints, the task is to determine the correct arrangement of the objects on a shelf

    Given a starting position and a sequence of movements, the goal is to determine the resulting grid after executing the moves. Permutation and CombinationGiven a set of objects with specific positioning constraints, the task is to determine the correct arrangement of the objects on a shelf. Each object must be placed in a position according to the rules pr...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    If the string ends with ‘ba’, replace it with ‘ab’

    String InsertionThe task is to transform a string by scanning it from left to right and inserting specific characters after certain character patterns (e.g., each pattern WXYZ requires inserting W immediately after it occurs). All operations are performed simultaneously on the original string. Letter Logic DiagramThe task is to complete an incomplete grid...

    work page

  4. [6]

    org/abs/2410.03524

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2410.03524. Chen, Z., Deng, Y ., Yuan, H., Ji, K., and Gu, Q. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335, 2024e. Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V ., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al. Training verifiers t...

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    L., Liu, Y ., Shang, N., Sun, Y ., Zhu, Y ., Yang, F., and Yang, M

    Guan, X., Zhang, L. L., Liu, Y ., Shang, N., Sun, Y ., Zhu, Y ., Yang, F., and Yang, M. rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04519,

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    Logicgame: Benchmarking rule-based reasoning abilities of large language models

    Gui, J., Liu, Y ., Cheng, J., Gu, X., Liu, X., Wang, H., Dong, Y ., Tang, J., and Huang, M. Logicgame: Benchmarking rule-based reasoning abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15778,

    arXiv

  7. [10]

    Deepseek-r1: In- centivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P., Bi, X., et al. Deepseek-r1: In- centivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    arXiv

  8. [11]

    Large language models can plan your travels rigorously with formal veri- fication tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11891, 2024a

    Hao, Y ., Chen, Y ., Zhang, Y ., and Fan, C. Large language models can plan your travels rigorously with formal veri- fication tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11891, 2024a. 10 CodeSteer: Symbolic-Augmented Language Models via Code/Text Guidance Hao, Y ., Zhang, Y ., and Fan, C. Planning anything with rigor: General-purpose zero-shot planning with llm-base...

    arXiv

Show all 35 references
  1. [12]

    Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

    Jaech, A., Kalai, A., Lerer, A., Richardson, A., El-Kishky, A., Low, A., Helyar, A., Madry, A., Beutel, A., Car- ney, A., et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

    arXiv

  2. [13]

    Crafting papers on machine learning

    Langley, P. Crafting papers on machine learning. In Langley, P. (ed.),Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000), pp. 1207–1216, Stan- ford, CA,

    2000

  3. [15]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753,

    Liang, J., Huang, W., Xia, F., Xu, P., Hausman, K., Ichter, B., Florence, P., and Zeng, A. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753,

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Language models of code are few-shot commonsense learners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07128,

    Madaan, A., Zhou, S., Alon, U., Yang, Y ., and Neubig, G. Language models of code are few-shot commonsense learners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07128,

    arXiv

  5. [17]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651,

    Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y ., et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651,

    arXiv

  6. [18]

    and Kalai, A

    Suzgun, M. and Kalai, A. T. Meta-prompting: Enhancing language models with task-agnostic scaffolding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12954,

    arXiv

  7. [19]

    W., Chowdhery, A., Le, Q

    Suzgun, M., Scales, N., Sch ¨arli, N., Gehrmann, S., Tay, Y ., Chung, H. W., Chowdhery, A., Le, Q. V ., Chi, E. H., Zhou, D., et al. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261,

    arXiv

  8. [20]

    Large language models still can’t plan (a bench- mark for llms on planning and reasoning about change)

    Valmeekam, K., Olmo, A., Sreedharan, S., and Kambham- pati, S. Large language models still can’t plan (a bench- mark for llms on planning and reasoning about change). InNeurIPS 2022 F oundation Models for Decision Mak- ing Workshop,

    2022

  9. [21]

    Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04692,

    Wang, J., Wang, J., Athiwaratkun, B., Zhang, C., and Zou, J. Mixture-of-agents enhances large language model capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04692,

    arXiv

  10. [22]

    Learning to reason via program generation, emulation, and search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16337,

    Weir, N., Khalifa, M., Qiu, L., Weller, O., and Clark, P. Learning to reason via program generation, emulation, and search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16337,

    arXiv

  11. [23]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155,

    Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y ., Zhang, S., Zhu, E., Li, B., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., and Wang, C. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155,

    arXiv

  12. [24]

    Crab: Cross- environment agent benchmark for multimodal language model agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01511,

    Xu, T., Chen, L., Wu, D.-J., Chen, Y ., Zhang, Z., Yao, X., Xie, Z., Chen, Y ., Liu, S., Qian, B., et al. Crab: Cross- environment agent benchmark for multimodal language model agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01511,

    arXiv

  13. [25]

    Re3: Generating longer stories with recursive reprompting and revision

    Yang, K., Tian, Y ., Peng, N., and Klein, D. Re3: Generating longer stories with recursive reprompting and revision. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 4393–4479,

    2022

  14. [26]

    Can llms reason in the wild with programs?arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13764,

    Yang, Y ., Xiong, S., Payani, A., Shareghi, E., and Fekri, F. Can llms reason in the wild with programs?arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13764,

    arXiv

  15. [27]

    Zhai, Y ., Bai, H., Lin, Z., Pan, J., Tong, S., Zhou, Y ., Suhr, A., Xie, S., LeCun, Y ., Ma, Y ., et al. Fine-tuning large 11 CodeSteer: Symbolic-Augmented Language Models via Code/Text Guidance vision-language models as decision-making agents via reinforcement learning.arXiv...

    arXiv

  16. [28]

    Chain of preference optimization: Improv- ing chain-of-thought reasoning in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09136,

    Zhang, X., Du, C., Pang, T., Liu, Q., Gao, W., and Lin, M. Chain of preference optimization: Improv- ing chain-of-thought reasoning in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09136,

    arXiv

  17. [29]

    Solving challenging math word problems using gpt-4 code in- terpreter with code-based self-verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07921, 2023a

    Zhou, A., Wang, K., Lu, Z., Shi, W., Luo, S., Qin, Z., Lu, S., Jia, A., Song, L., Zhan, M., et al. Solving challenging math word problems using gpt-4 code in- terpreter with code-based self-verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07921, 2023a. Zhou, A., Yan, K., Shlapentokh-Rot...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [30]

    However, it fails in medium-difficulty questions since it tends to be overconfident and chooses to answer the question via textual reasoning, which sometimes is wrong

    GPT-4o Code Interpreter chooses to handle simple Number Multiplying questions with text and complex questions with code, resulting in correct answers. However, it fails in medium-difficulty questions since it tends to be overconfident and chooses to answer the question via tex...

    2025

  19. [31]

    Path PlanThis task involves querying LLMs to plan the robot trajectory waypoints based on human task instructions and environments

    This task is tested in previous work Tree-of-Thought (Yao et al., 2024). Path PlanThis task involves querying LLMs to plan the robot trajectory waypoints based on human task instructions and environments. This task originates from AutoTAMP (Chen et al., 2024b). LettersThis tas...

    2024

  20. [32]

    MATH-GeometryThis is the math reasoning dataset from MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021), with specific focus on geometry questions

    math reasoning dataset, where the numbers in the original questions of GSM8K are replaced with larger, less common values. MATH-GeometryThis is the math reasoning dataset from MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021), with specific focus on geometry questions. MATH-Count&Probabil...

    2021

  21. [35]

    Checker Checker Checker Checker Ave

    7.Agent WO 8.Agent WO Steer DPO WO Data Symbolic Self-answer Agent Symbolic Self-answer Task success rate % Augment. Checker Checker Checker Checker Ave. Norm., Seen 88.1 80.0 79.7 80.1 78.5 77.0 71.9 70.1 Ave. Norm., Unseen 81.3 76.2 70.9 68.6 64.2 67.9 62.0 57.4 Ave. Norm., ...

  22. [2000]

    Li, C., Liang, J., Zeng, A., Chen, X., Hausman, K., Sadigh, D., Levine, S., Fei-Fei, L., Xia, F., and Ichter, B

    Morgan Kaufmann. Li, C., Liang, J., Zeng, A., Chen, X., Hausman, K., Sadigh, D., Levine, S., Fei-Fei, L., Xia, F., and Ichter, B. Chain of code: Reasoning with a language model-augmented code emulator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04474,

    arXiv

  23. [2021]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    arXiv

  24. [2022]

    Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms

    Chen, X., Xu, J., Liang, T., He, Z., Pang, J., Yu, D., Song, L., Liu, Q., Zhou, M., Zhang, Z., et al. Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.21187, 2024a. Chen, Y ., Arkin, J., Dawson, C., Zhang, Y ., Roy, N., and Fan, ...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [2023]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Ground- ing language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691,

    Ahn, M., Brohan, A., Brown, N., Chebotar, Y ., Cortes, O., David, B., Finn, C., Gopalakrishnan, K., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Ground- ing language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691,

    arXiv

  26. [2024]

    Chen, W., Ma, X., Wang, X., and Cohen, W. W. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588,

    arXiv

  27. [2025]

    URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1145/3690624.3709196

    doi: 10.1145/3690624.3709196. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1145/3690624.3709196. Bairi, R., Sonwane, A., Kanade, A., Iyer, A., Parthasarathy, S., Rajamani, S., Ashok, B., and Shet, S. Codeplan: Repository-level coding using llms and planning.Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Software E...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.