PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

THOUGHT PROPAGATION: AN ANALOGICAL APPROACH TO COMPLEX REASONING WITH LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS

Junchi Yu, Ran He, Zhitao Ying

robotics & planningLLM Complex ReasoningLanguage Model Reasoning
51.20100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
41.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
64.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in reasoning tasks with the development of prompting methods. However, existing prompting approaches cannot reuse insights of solving similar problems and suffer from accumulated errors in multi-step reasoning, since they prompt LLMs to reason \textit{from scratch}. To address these issues, we propose \textbf{\textit{Thought Propagation} (TP)}, which explores the analogous problems and leverages their solutions to enhance the complex reasoning ability of LLMs. These analogous problems are related to the input one, with reusable solutions and problem-solving strategies. Thus, it is promising to propagate insights of solving previous analogous problems to inspire new problem-solving. To achieve this, TP first prompts LLMs to propose and solve a set of analogous problems that are related to the input one. Then, TP reuses the results of analogous problems to directly yield a new solution or derive a knowledge-intensive plan for execution to amend the initial solution obtained from scratch. TP is compatible with existing prompting approaches, allowing plug-and-play generalization and enhancement in a wide range of tasks without much labor in task-specific prompt engineering. Experiments across three challenging tasks demonstrate TP enjoys a substantial improvement over the baselines by an average of 12\% absolute increase in finding the optimal solutions in Shortest-path Reasoning, 13\% improvement of human preference in Creative Writing, and 15\% enhancement in the task completion rate of LLM-Agent Planning.

Author context

Most prolific author: 9 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)