LEMMA: Learning from Errors for MatheMatical Advancement in LLMs (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Zhuoshi Pan, Yu Li, Honglin Lin, Qizhi Pei, Zinan Tang, Wei Wu, Chenlin Ming, H. Vicky Zhao, Conghui He, Lijun Wu
| Challenge: | Existing approaches focus on improving the quality of correct training data, neglecting the value contained in error data, thereby hindering the model’s reflective ability. |
| Approach: | They propose to improve LLM's reasoning ability by learning from error data and a grounded mistake augmentation method to collect representative errors. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves significant performance improvements over other strong models with less than 90k data. |
Similar Papers
Exposing the Achilles’ Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations focus on final accuracy, neglecting the critical aspect of reasoning capabilities. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate LLMs’ abilities to detect and correct reasoning mistakes by using rule-based methods and smaller language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing models such as GPT-4o and GPT4 in both accuracy and accuracy, but lacks data contamination and memorization concerns. |
Can LLMs Learn From Mistakes? An Empirical Study on Reasoning Tasks (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work has shown that simple learning can enhance the chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning of large language models. |
| Approach: | They construct mistake-correction datasets to identify and correct mistakes in CoTs . they conclude that LLMs can learn from mistakes to enhance their CoT reasoning . |
| Outcome: | The proposed datasets show that LLMs can learn from mistakes to enhance their CoT reasoning performance. |
LLMs-as-Instructors: Learning from Errors Toward Automating Model Improvement (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using advanced Large Language Models, instructors can improve training of smaller models by analyzing their own model's errors. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that leverages advanced Large Language Models to enhance training of smaller target models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms ChatGPT on multiple benchmarks and shows that it improves on both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks. |
Self-Error-Instruct: Generalizing from Errors for LLMs Mathematical Reasoning (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Erxin Yu, Jing Li, Ming Liao, Qi Zhu, Boyang Xue, Minghui Xu, Baojun Wang, Lanqing Hong, Fei Mi, Lifeng Shang
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to learning from errors synthesize training data by extrapolating from isolated bad cases, thereby failing to generalize the extensive patterns inherent within these cases. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that synthesizes more generalized training data from isolated bad cases by extrapolating from isolated cases. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework synthesizes more generalized training data to address these model weaknesses. |
Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations focus on problem-solving from examiner perspective, overlooking a dual perspective of examiner regarding error identification and correction. |
| Approach: | They propose to use an annotated dataset to evaluate large language models from the examiner perspective and to use diverse prompts to evaluate eleven representative LLMs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all models while LLaMA-2-7B has comparable abilities to closed-source models GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro. |
Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs’ Errors to Boost for Reasoning (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have shown the benefits to LLMs from fine-tuning golden-standard Chain-of-Thought rationales or using them as correct examples in few-shot prompting. |
| Approach: | They propose a new benchmark to test the effectiveness of large language models by leveraging errors to enhance reasoning capabilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods can be used to fine-tune models in correct and incorrect domains, rather than tuning models to learn ground truth in traditional methods. |
Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Yunxiang Zhang, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang
| Challenge: | Existing studies show that large language models can self-correct their outputs by generating a critique and revising it based on the critique. |
| Approach: | They propose a pipeline that prompts small language models to collect self-correction data that supports the training of self-refinement abilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed pipeline improves the self-correction abilities of two models on five datasets spanning math and commonsense reasoning. |
Self-Explore: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models with Fine-grained Rewards (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have shown that large language models can solve complex reasoning tasks with Chain-of-Thought Prompting. |
| Approach: | They propose a training method where the LLM is tasked to explore the first wrong step within the rationale and use such signals as fine-grained rewards for further improvement. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on the GSM8K and MATH test sets by 11.57% and 2.89% on average compared to supervised fine-tuning (SFT). |
To Err Is Human, but Llamas Can Learn It Too (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Specifically, we fine-tune Llama 2 LMs for error generation and find that this approach yields synthetic errors akin to human errors. |
| Approach: | They propose to fine-tune Llama 2 LMs for error generation and train GEC Llma models using these artificial errors. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art models with gains ranging between 0.8 and 6 F0.5 points across all languages tested. |
LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent attempts to self-correct logical or reasoning errors often cause correct answers to become incorrect, resulting in poor performance overall. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a backtracking setup to test the correction abilities of LLMs on their mistake-finding ability to find logical mistakes. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on 5 reasoning tasks, showing that it can correct logical mistakes without ground truth labels or training data. |