Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

LLMs can Find Mathematical Reasoning Mistakes by Pedagogical Chain-of-Thought

Authors
Zhuoxuan Jiang,
Haoyuan Peng,
Shanshan Feng,
Fan Li,
Dongsheng Li
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Self-correction is emerging as a promising approach to mitigate the issue of hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs). To facilitate effective self-correction, recent research has proposed mistake detection as its initial step. However, current literature suggests that LLMs often struggle with reliably identifying reasoning mistakes when using simplistic prompting strategies. To address this challenge, we introduce a unique prompting strategy, termed the Pedagogical Chain-of-Thought (PedCoT), which is specifically designed to guide the identification of reasoning mistakes, particularly mathematical reasoning mistakes. PedCoT consists of pedagogical principles for prompts (PPP) design, two-stage interaction process (TIP) and grounded PedCoT prompts, all inspired by the educational theory of the Bloom Cognitive Model (BCM). We evaluate our approach on two public datasets featuring math problems of varying difficulty levels. The experiments demonstrate that our zero-shot prompting strategy significantly outperforms strong baselines. The proposed method can achieve the goal of reliable mathematical mistake identification and provide a foundation for automatic math answer grading. The results underscore the significance of educational theory, serving as domain knowledge, in guiding prompting strategy design for addressing challenging tasks with LLMs effectively.
Study at a glance
  • Question: Can an education-based prompting method help AI models better find mistakes in mathematical reasoning?
  • Setting and data: Two public datasets of math problems with varying difficulty levels.
  • Method: Compares a new prompting method against standard baselines across two math problem datasets.
Why it matters

Large language models often struggle to reliably identify reasoning mistakes when using simplistic prompting strategies. However, detecting mistakes is the initial step needed for effective self-correction to mitigate model hallucinations.

Key findings
  • Across math problems of varying difficulty, AI guided by educational theory significantly outperformed standard methods at detecting reasoning mistakes.
  • Educationally grounded prompts enabled AI to reliably identify mathematical reasoning errors, providing a foundation for automated math answer grading.
  • Current evidence suggests that AI models often struggle to reliably identify reasoning mistakes when using simplistic prompts.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Why use AI?