Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Tian Ye 0011

dblp:383/7116 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Language models and text generation · 87% Representation and self-supervised learning · 6% Learning theory · 6%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
mathematical reasoning
1.722025
Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process · ICLR 2025
Physics of Language Models: Part 2.2, How to Learn From Mistakes on Grade-School Math Problems · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Learning theory › neural network theory › neural network analysis
memorization versus reasoning
0.312025
Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › pre-training
pretraining data
0.312025
Physics of Language Models: Part 2.2, How to Learn From Mistakes on Grade-School Math Problems · ICLR 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

probing · 0.9multi-round prompting · 0.9controlled experiment · 0.9beam search · 0.9autoregressive language modeling · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Physics of Language Models: Part 2.2, How to Learn From Mistakes on Grade-School Math Problems
abstract
Language models have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving reasoning tasks; however, even the strongest models still occasionally make reasoning mistakes. Recently, there has been active research aimed at improving reasoning accuracy, particularly by using pretrained language models to "self-correct'' their mistakes via multi-round prompting. In this paper, we follow this line of work but focus on understanding the usefulness of incorporating ``error-correction'' data directly into the pretraining stage. This data consists of erroneous solution steps immediately followed by their corrections. Using a synthetic math dataset, we show promising results: this type of pretrain data can help language models achieve higher reasoning accuracy directly (i.e., through simple auto-regression, without multi-round prompting) compared to pretraining on the same amount of error-free data. We also delve into many details, such as (1) how this approach differs from beam search, (2) how such data can be prepared, (3) whether masking is needed on the erroneous tokens, (4) the amount of error required, (5) whether such data can be deferred to the fine-tuning stage, and many others.
Tian Ye 0011, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, Zeyuan Allen Zhu
ICLR1
2025 Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process
abstract
Recent advances in language models have demonstrated their capability to solve mathematical reasoning problems, achieving near-perfect accuracy on grade-school level math benchmarks like GSM8K. In this paper, we formally study how language models solve these problems. We design a series of controlled experiments to address several fundamental questions: (1) Can language models truly develop reasoning skills, or do they simply memorize templates? (2) What is the model's hidden (mental) reasoning process? (3) Do models solve math questions using skills similar to or different from humans? (4) Do models trained on GSM8K-like datasets develop reasoning skills beyond those necessary for solving GSM8K problems? (5) What mental process causes models to make reasoning mistakes? (6) How large or deep must a model be to effectively solve GSM8K-level math questions? Our study uncovers many hidden mechanisms by which language models solve mathematical questions, providing insights that extend beyond current understandings of LLMs.
Tian Ye 0011, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, Zeyuan Allen Zhu
ICLR1