# Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?

Chengwei Qin†, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang♣, Jiaao Chen♠,
Michihiro Yasunaga${}^{\vardiamondsuit}$, Diyi Yang${}^{\vardiamondsuit}$
†Nanyang Technological University,♣Shanghai Jiao Tong University
♠ Georgia Institute of Technology, ${}^{\vardiamondsuit}$ Stanford University
Correspondence to Chengwei Qin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Aston Zhang
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

Spurred by advancements in scale, large language models (LLMs) have
demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing
(NLP) tasks zero-shot—i.e., without adaptation on downstream data. Recently,
the debut of ChatGPT 111https://chat.openai.com/ has drawn a great deal of
attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community due to the fact
that it can generate high-quality responses to human input and self-correct
previous mistakes based on subsequent conversations. However, it is not yet
known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many
NLP tasks zero-shot. In this work, we empirically analyze the zero-shot
learning ability of ChatGPT by evaluating it on 20 popular NLP datasets
covering 7 representative task categories. With extensive empirical studies,
we demonstrate both the effectiveness and limitations of the current version
of ChatGPT. We find that ChatGPT performs well on many tasks favoring
reasoning capabilities (e.g., arithmetic reasoning) while it still faces
challenges when solving specific tasks such as sequence tagging. We
additionally provide in-depth analysis through qualitative case studies.

##  1 Introduction

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be able to solve a variety of
natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero shot—i.e., without relying on any
training data for a given downstream task—by conditioning the model on
appropriate prompts (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022a). The ability
to perform new tasks based on instructions can be seen as an important step
towards artificial general intelligence (Goertzel, 2014). Despite achieving
reasonable performance in some cases, current LLMs are still prone to various
mistakes in zero-shot learning. In addition, the format of the prompt can have
a substantial impact—for example, simply adding “ _Let’s think step by step_ ”
(Kojima et al., 2022) has been shown to significantly improve the performance
of InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) on reasoning tasks. These limitations
illustrate that current LLMs are not truly general-purpose language systems.

Recently, the ChatGPT LLM released by OpenAI has attracted a great deal of
attention from the NLP community. ChatGPT was created by training a GPT-3.5
series model through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF)
(Christiano et al., 2017) (similarly to InstructGPT). RLHF mainly includes
three steps: training a language model with supervised learning, collecting
comparison data based on human preferences and training a reward model, and
optimizing the language model against the reward model using reinforcement
learning (Ouyang et al., 2022). Through RLHF training, ChatGPT has been
observed to have impressive capabilities in various aspects, including
generating high-quality responses to human input, rejecting inappropriate
questions, and self-correcting previous errors based on subsequent
conversations (Guo et al., 2023).

Figure 1: Performance of ChatGPT, GPT-3.5, and models fine-tuned with task-
specific data for 20 different datasets. For each reasoning dataset, the
better result between zero-shot and zero-shot chain-of-thought is shown.
Measures of SAMsum, CoNLL03, and the rest are ROUGE-1/2/L average, F1,
accuracy, respectively.

While ChatGPT shows strong dialogic capabilities, it still remains unclear to
the NLP community whether ChatGPT attains better zero-shot generalization
compared with existing LLMs. To fill in this research gap, we systematically
study the zero-shot learning capability of ChatGPT by evaluating it on a large
collection of NLP datasets covering 7 representative task categories,
including reasoning222Reasoning abilities can be assessed by means of
linguistic tasks (Liang et al., 2022), such as with prompt templates and
chains of thought in the text format., natural language inference, question
answering (reading comprehension), dialogue, summarization, named entity
recognition, and sentiment analysis. With extensive experiments, we aim to
answer the following research questions:

  * •

Is ChatGPT a general-purpose NLP task solver? On what types of tasks does
ChatGPT perform well?

  * •

If ChatGPT fell behind other models on certain tasks, why?

To answer these questions, we empirically compare the performance of ChatGPT
(gpt-3.5-turbo) and the previous GPT-3.5 model (text-davinci-003). In
addition, we report zero-shot, fine-tuned, or few-shot fine-tuned results from
recent work such as FLAN (Wei et al., 2021), T0 (Sanh et al., 2021b), and PaLM
(Chowdhery et al., 2022b).

##### Key takeaways

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of the ChatGPT’s zero-
shot capabilities on a diverse range of NLP tasks, aiming to provide a profile
of ChatGPT. The key findings and insights are summarized as follows:

  * •

Although ChatGPT shows some capability as a _generalist_ model that can
perform multiple tasks (Zhang et al., 2021), it often performs worse than
models that are fine-tuned on a given task (Section 4.3 and Figure 1).

  * •

The superior reasoning capability of ChatGPT is empirically substantiated in
arithmetic reasoning tasks (Section 4.2.1). However, ChatGPT often
underperforms GPT-3.5 in commonsense, symbolic, and logical reasoning tasks.

  * •

ChatGPT outperforms GPT-3.5 for natural language inference tasks (Section
4.2.3) and question answering (reading comprehension) tasks (Section 4.2.4)
that favor reasoning capabilities, such as in determining logical
relationships within text pairs. Specifically, ChatGPT is better at handling
factually consistent text (i.e., better at classifying entailment rather than
non-entailment).

  * •

ChatGPT is superior to GPT-3.5 for dialogue tasks (Section 4.2.5).

  * •

ChatGPT generates longer summaries and performs worse than GPT-3.5 for
summarization tasks. However, explicitly limiting summary length in the zero-
shot instruction harms the summarization quality, leading to even worse
performance (Section 4.2.6).

  * •

Despite showing promise as generalist models, both ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 face
challenges on certain tasks such as sequence tagging (Section 4.2.7).

  * •

ChatGPT’s sentiment analysis ability is better than that of GPT-3.5 (Section
4.2.8).

##  2 Related Work

This work mainly explores the zero-shot learning capability of ChatGPT on a
diverse collection of datasets including reasoning and classic NLP tasks. In
light of this, we review three lines of research that form the basis of this
work: large language models, zero-shot learning, and chain-of-thought
prompting for reasoning.

###  2.1 Large Language Models

Ever since Radford et al. (2019); Brown et al. (2020) demonstrated that
language models can perform a variety of tasks without any gradient updates by
providing the model with a textual instruction (_zero-shot_) and/or a few
examples (_few-shot_), a great deal of work has focused on developing better
large language models (LLMs). One line of work has aimed to explore the
benefits of scaling up LLMs, including Megatron-turing NLG (Smith et al.,
2022) with 530 billion parameters, Gopher (Rae et al., 2021) with 280 billion
parameters, and PaLM Chowdhery et al. (2022b) with 540 billion parameters. The
benefits of this scale have born out on stronger performance on more difficult
tasks, e.g. the finding that PaLM outperformed average humans on the
challenging BIG-bench benchmark (Srivastava et al., 2022). These LLMs also
form the basis of better models, such as Minerva (Lewkowycz et al., 2022)
which achieved state-of-the-art performance on various technical benchmarks.
Rather than scaling up model size alone, a separate line of research aims to
attain better performance with smaller models through longer training
(Hoffmann et al., 2022) or alternative objectives Tay et al. (2022). One
particularly fruitful direction has been training LLMs with supervision (Sanh
et al., 2021b; Wei et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022)
and/or human feedback (Ouyang et al., 2022). The strong performance of LLMs
has led to a significant amount of work analyzing the abilities and behaviors
of LLMs (Webson and Pavlick, 2022; Qin and Joty, 2022b; Min et al., 2022;
Liang et al., 2022; Qin et al., 2023a, b).

###  2.2 Zero-Shot Learning

Zero-shot learning aims to solve unseen tasks without labeled training
examples. It results in a big challenge for models as they typically rely on
large amounts of training data. Prior methods to solve zero-shot learning can
be mainly divided into two categories: (i)  _model-based_ methods focused on
how to directly learn a model for unseen samples (Fu et al., 2017; Wang et
al., 2018); and (ii)  _instance-based_ methods tried to obtain labeled
instances for unseen tasks to improve model learning (Zhang et al., 2017; Ye
and Guo, 2017; Qin and Joty, 2022a). More recent work has demonstrated the
superiority of LLMs for zero-shot learning (Brown et al., 2020; Wei et al.,
2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022b). The most recent breakthrough of LLMs is the
debut of ChatGPT, which has shown amazing ability in various aspects related
to dialogue. Going a step further, we explore the zero-shot learning
capability of ChatGPT on different tasks beyond dialogue in this work.

###  2.3 Chain-of-Thought Prompting

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting induces LLMs to generate intermediate
reasoning steps before answering (Wei et al., 2022). According to whether
there are manual demonstrations, current CoT prompting methods can be divided
into two main categories: manual-CoT and zero-Shot-CoT. In manual-CoT, LLMs
perform CoT reasoning with manually designed demonstrations (Wei et al.,
2022). Least-to-most prompting (Zhou et al., 2022) decomposed complex problems
into subproblems and then sequentially solved the subproblems. Wang et al.
(2022b) introduced self-consistency to sample multiple reasoning paths, and
then conducted a majority vote to determine the final answer. To generate more
diverse outputs, Li et al. (2022a) and Wang et al. (2022a) explored applying
randomness in the input space. In zero-Shot-CoT, Kojima et al. (2022)
demonstrated that LLMs are decent zero-shot reasoners by leveraging self-
generated rationales. The effectiveness of self-generated rationales was also
verified by STaR (Zelikman et al., 2022), which enabled the model to self-
improve through its own generated rationales. Zhang et al. (2023a) proposed
Auto-CoT to automatically generate rationales from test questions. Most recent
studies mainly focused on how to improve manual-CoT, including optimizing the
demonstration selection (Rubin et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Lu et al.,
2022b; Qin et al., 2023c) and optimizing the quality of reasoning chains (Khot
et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2023). In addition, researchers
also studied the feasibility of adopting CoT in multilingual scenarios (Shi et
al., 2022) and in smaller language models (Magister et al., 2022; Ho et al.,
2022). More recently, Zhang et al. (2023b) proposed Multimodal-CoT that
incorporates vision features in CoT reasoning, with the model under 1 billion
parameters outperforming GPT-3.5 by 16% and even surpassing human performance
on the ScienceQA benchmark (Lu et al., 2022a).

##  3 Methodology

Figure 2: Instructions and input formats of six different categories of tasks
(sentiment analysis, natural language inference, named entity recognition,
question answering, dialogue, and summarization). The task instructions are
taken from or inspired by Brown et al. (2020), Ouyang et al. (2022), Zhang et
al. (2023a) and Ding et al. (2022). We color the instructions in blue. After
reading the entire input (circled by the green dashed box), the model
generates an answer.  Figure 3: Illustration of reasoning tasks. We show the
instruction of AQUA-RAT (Ling et al., 2017) in this figure. Other reasoning
tasks have similar instructions, e.g., “ _The answer (arabic numerals) is_ ”
for MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015). Note that we also conduct zero-shot
chain-of-thought (zero-shot-CoT) experiments with ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 for
reasoning tasks (right part).

As mentioned in Section 1, we mainly compare the zero-shot learning
performance of ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) and GPT-3.5 (text-davinci-003) on
different tasks. Given a task instruction $P$ and a test problem $X$ that are
concatenated as the input, the model $f$ is expected to generate a target text
$Y=f(P,X)$ to address the test problem. The instructions and input formats of
different tasks are shown in Figure 2 and 3. For example, when the model
performs sentiment analysis tasks, the task instruction $P$ is “For each
snippet of text, label the sentiment of the text as positive or negative. The
answer should be exact ‘positive’ or ‘negative’.”. After reading the
instruction $P$ and the input $X$ “it ’s a stunning lyrical work of
considerable force and truth.”, the model is expected to generate the output
$Y$ “positive”.

Different from this single-stage prompting method, we use the same two-stage
prompting as Kojima et al. (2022) for zero-shot-CoT. In the first stage, we
adopt “Let’s think step by step.” as the instruction $P_{1}$ to induce the
model to generate the rationale $R$. In the second stage, we use the self-
generated rationale $R$ along with the original input $X$ and the instruction
$P_{1}$ as the new input to guide the model to generate the final answer. A
new instruction $P_{2}$, e.g., “Therefore, among A through E, the answer is”,
serves as the trigger sentence for extracting the answer. All task
instructions are taken from or inspired by Brown et al. (2020), Ouyang et al.
(2022), Zhang et al. (2023a) and Ding et al. (2022).

##  4 Experiments

In this section, we first describe the tasks and datasets, and then present
the experimental results.

###  4.1 Tasks and Datasets

| Arithmetic | Commonsense | Symbolic
---|---|---|---
| MultiArith | GSM8K | AddSub | AQuA | SingleEq | SVAMP | CSQA | StrategyQA | COPA | Letter | Coin
Measure | Accuracy
# Samples | 600 | 1319 | 395 | 254 | 508 | 1000 | 1221 | 2290 | 100 | 500 | 500
|  | Logical | NLI | QA | Dialogue | Sum | NER | Sentiment
|  | Date | Object | RTE | CB | BoolQ | MuTual | SAMSum | CoNLL | SST2
Measure |  | Accuracy | ROUGE | F1 | Accuracy
# Samples |  | 369 | 750 | 277 | 56 | 3270 | 886 | 819 | 3453 | 872

Table 1: Information of different datasets. # Samples refers to the number of
test samples.

We evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 with 20 different datasets covering 7
representative task categories: reasoning (MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015),
GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), AddSub (Hosseini et al., 2014), AQUA-RAT (Ling et
al., 2017), SingleEq (Koncel-Kedziorski et al., 2015), SVAMP (Patel et al.,
2021), CSQA (Talmor et al., 2019), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), COPA
(Roemmele et al., 2011), Last Letter Concatenation (Wei et al., 2022), Coin
Flip (Wei et al., 2022), Date Understanding, and Tracking Shuffled Objects
(Srivastava et al., 2022)), natural language inference (RTE (Dagan et al.,
2006) and CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019)), question answering (BoolQ (Clark et
al., 2019)), dialogue (MuTual (Cui et al., 2020)), summarization (SAMSum
(Gliwa et al., 2019)), named entity recognition (CoNLL03 (Sang and De Meulder,
2003)), and sentiment analysis (SST2 (Socher et al., 2013)). Among these
datasets, there are 4 categories of reasoning tasks: arithmetic, commonsense,
symbolic, and logical reasoning. The information of different datasets is
shown in Table 1. By default we use the test split for all datasets if the
labels are available for evaluation. For COPA and CommonsenseQA, we use the
validation split. For StrategyQA, we use the open-domain setting (question-
only set) from BIG-bench collaboration (2021) following Wei et al. (2022);
Zhang et al. (2023a); Kojima et al. (2022).

Model | MultiArith | GSM8K | AddSub | AQUA-RAT | SingleEq | SVAMP
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT
Zero-Shot Performance |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
text-davinci-002 | 22.7 | 78.7 | 12.5 | 40.7 | 77.0 | 74.7 | 22.4 | 33.5 | 78.7 | 78.7 | 58.8 | 63.7
text-davinci-003 | 24.2 | 83.7 | 12.6 | 59.5 | 87.3 | 81.3 | 28.0 | 40.6 | 82.3 | 86.4 | 64.7 | 73.6
ChatGPT | 79.8 | 95.8 | 23.8 | 78.9 | 88.6 | 83.5 | 28.0 | 53.5 | 89.4 | 91.5 | 74.8 | 77.5
Few-Shot Performance |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
UL2 | 5.0 | 10.7 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 18.5 | 18.2 | 20.5 | 23.6 | 18.0 | 20.2 | 10.1 | 12.5
LaMDA | 7.6 | 44.9 | 6.5 | 14.3 | 43.0 | 51.9 | 25.5 | 20.6 | 48.8 | 58.7 | 29.5 | 37.5
text-davinci-002 | 33.8 | 91.7 | 15.6 | 46.9 | 83.3 | 81.3 | 24.8 | 35.8 | 82.7 | 86.6 | 65.7 | 68.9
Codex | 44.0 | 96.2 | 19.7 | 63.1 | 90.9 | 90.9 | 29.5 | 45.3 | 86.8 | 93.1 | 69.9 | 76.4
PaLM | 42.2 | 94.7 | 17.9 | 56.9 | 93.9 | 91.9 | 25.2 | 35.8 | 86.5 | 92.3 | 69.4 | 79.0

Table 2: Accuracy ($\%$) of different models without CoT (N/A) and with CoT on
arithmetic reasoning datasets. Few-shot results are from Wei et al. (2022). We
compare ChatGPT with popular techniques including UL2-20B, LaMDA-137B,
PaLM-540B, and the different GPT-3.5 variants. Figure 4: A case where ChatGPT
corrects the mistake made by GPT-3.5. We color the correct and wrong responses
in green and red, respectively.

Model | Commonsense | Symbolic | Logical
---|---|---|---
CSQA | StrategyQA | COPA | Last Letter | Coin Flip | Date | Object
N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT | N/A | CoT
Zero-Shot Performance |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
text-davinci-002 | 72.6 | 64.6 | 54.3 | 54.8 | 74.0 | 85.0 | 0.2 | 57.6 | 53.8 | 91.4 | 49.3 | 67.5 | 31.3 | 52.9
text-davinci-003 | 74.9 | 70.0 | 57.2 | 61.1 | 93.0 | 64.0 | 0.0 | 54.4 | 49.0 | 97.8 | 56.6 | 77.0 | 27.1 | 39.7
ChatGPT | 73.7 | 71.5 | 61.1 | 55.5 | 78.0 | 82.0 | 0.4 | 70.2 | 21.8 | 65.8 | 48.0 | 72.6 | 31.6 | 58.7
Few-Shot Performance |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
UL2 | 34.2 | 51.4 | 59.0 | 53.3 | - | - | 0.6 | 18.8 | 70.4 | 67.1 | 13.5 | 14.0 | - | -
LaMDA | 53.6 | 57.9 | 62.4 | 65.4 | - | - | 5.8 | 77.5 | 49.0 | 99.6 | 21.5 | 26.8 | - | -
text-davinci-002 | 79.5 | 73.5 | 65.9 | 65.4 | - | - | 0.2 | 59.0 | 57.2 | 97.2 | 43.8 | 52.1 | - | -
Codex | 82.3 | 77.9 | 67.1 | 73.2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 49.0 | 64.8 | - | -
PaLM | 78.1 | 79.9 | 68.6 | 77.8 | 95.0 | - | 7.6 | 99.4 | 98.1 | 100.0 | 49.0 | 65.3 | 23.9 | -

Table 3: Accuracy ($\%$) of different models without CoT (N/A) and with CoT on
commonsense, symbolic and logical reasoning datasets. Few-shot results are
from Wei et al. (2022). We compare ChatGPT with popular techniques including
UL2-20B, LaMDA-137B, PaLM-540B, and the different GPT-3.5 variants.

###  4.2 Experimental Results

We now present and analyze the empirical results of different categories of
tasks.

####  4.2.1 Arithmetic Reasoning

The accuracy of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 without or with chain-of-thought (CoT) on
six arithmetic reasoning datasets is shown in Table 2. ChatGPT outperforms
GPT-3.5 on five out of six datasets without CoT, demonstrating its strong
arithmetic reasoning ability. Figure 4 shows a case where GPT-3.5 gives a
wrong answer. On the left part of the figure, ChatGPT accurately understands
“lost 8 lives” and “got 39 more lives”, resulting in the correct answer “74
lives”. However, GPT-3.5 generates a wrong answer “120 lives” that is
irrelevant to the information provided, indicating that GPT-3.5 does not
understand the input question. Furthermore, ChatGPT achieves much better
performance than GPT-3.5 when using CoT in all cases.

####  4.2.2 Commonsense, Symbolic, and Logical Reasoning

Table 3 reports the accuracy of ChatGPT compared with popular LLMs on seven
commonsense, symbolic and logical reasoning datasets. We make two key
observations as follows:

First, using CoT may not always provide better performance in commonsense
reasoning tasks. According to the analysis in Kojima et al. (2022), CoT
methods often produce flexible and reasonable rationales but the final
prediction is not correct in commonsense reasoning tasks. The results imply
that commonsense reasoning tasks may require more fine-grained background
knowledge and the issue can be mitigated by scaling model size (Wei et al.,
2022), mixture of denoisers (Tay et al., 2022), and majority voting on
multiple predictions (self-consistency) (Wang et al., 2022b).

Second, different from arithmetic reasoning, ChatGPT performs worse than
GPT-3.5 in many cases, indicating that the corresponding capabilities of
GPT-3.5 are stronger.

####  4.2.3 Natural Language Inference

Model | Zero-Shot | Fine-Tuned
---|---|---
ChatGPT | GPT-3.5 | FLAN | T0 | PaLM | PaLM
RTE | 85.9 | 80.1 | 84.1 | 80.8 | 72.9 | 95.8
CB | 89.3 | 83.9 | 83.9 | 70.1 | 51.8 | 100.0

Table 4: Accuracy ($\%$) of different models on natural language inference
tasks (RTE and CB). We compare zero-shot ChatGPT with recent models including
GPT-3.5 (zero-shot) (Brown et al., 2020), FLAN (zero-shot) (Wei et al., 2021),
T0 (zero-shot) (Sanh et al., 2021a), PaLM (zero-shot) (Chowdhery et al.,
2022b) and PaLM-540B (fine-tuned) (Chowdhery et al., 2022b).

It is worth mentioning that different from sentiment analysis tasks (Section
4.2.8), after specifying the desired output format (“entail” or “not entail”)
of natural language inference in task instructions, ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 can
produce responses that exactly follow the requirement. Table 4 presents the
results of different models on two natural language inference tasks: RTE and
CB. We can see that ChatGPT can achieve much better performance than GPT-3.5,
FLAN, T0, and PaLM under the zero-shot setting. This demonstrates the superior
zero-shot capability of ChatGPT to infer sentence relations.

Model | ChatGPT | GPT-3.5
---|---|---
Entailment | 92.5 | 70.6
Not Entailment | 78.6 | 90.8

Table 5: Per-class accuracy ($\%$) of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 on RTE.

To take a closer look at why ChatGPT outperforms GPT-3.5 by a large margin, we
report the per-class accuracy of both models in Table 5. ChatGPT performs much
better than GPT-3.5 when the premise does entail the hypothesis (+21.9%).
However, it underperforms GPT-3.5 on the class “Not Entailment” (-12.2%). So
we can see that ChatGPT is better at handling factual input (also favored by
humans in general), which might be related to the preference of the human
feedback in its own RLHF design during model training.

####  4.2.4 Question Answering

Model | Zero-Shot | Fine-Tuned
---|---|---
ChatGPT | GPT-3.5 | Gopher | Chinchilla | FLAN | PaLM | CompassMTL | T5-11B | DeBERTa
Accuracy($\%$) | 87.3 | 84.7 | 79.3 | 83.7 | 82.9 | 88.0 | 88.3 | 91.2 | 90.4

Table 6: Accuracy of different models on question answering (BoolQ). We
compare ChatGPT with popular methods including (i) zero-shot methods: Gopher
(Rae et al., 2021), Chinchilla (Hoffmann et al., 2022), GPT-3.5, FLAN (Wei et
al., 2021), and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022b); (ii) fine-tuned models:
CompassMTL (Zhang et al., 2022), T5 (Raffel et al., 2020), DeBERTa (He et al.,
2020).

We report the accuracy of different models on the BoolQ dataset (reading
comprehension) in Table 6. ChatGPT outperforms GPT-3.5 by over $2\%$. This is
consistent with the results on natural language inference. As illustrated in
Clark et al. (2019), the questions in BoolQ require difficult entailment-like
inference to solve. Therefore, ChatGPT can better handle tasks favoring
reasoning capabilities.

Model | ChatGPT | GPT-3.5
---|---|---
Yes |  88.9 (+7.8) | 81.1
No |  84.6 (-6.0) | 90.6

Table 7: Per-class accuracy ($\%$) of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 on BoolQ. The number
in parentheses indicates the improvement over GPT-3.5.

Table 7 shows the per-class accuracy of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5. We can see that
ChatGPT significantly outperforms GPT-3.5 on the class “Yes”, indicating that
ChatGPT prefers handling factual input. In addition, although we require
ChatGPT to output “Yes” or “No” via task instructions, it still generates some
other responses, e.g., “It is unclear”, which could be one of the reasons why
ChatGPT performs worse than PaLM.

####  4.2.5 Dialogue

Model | Zero-Shot | Unsupervised | Fine-Tuned
---|---|---|---
ChatGPT | GPT-3.5 | TF-IDF | Dual LSTM | DAM | SMN | BERT | RoBERTa | GPT-2-FT | MDFN | BiDeN
Accuracy ($\%$) | 76.2 | 75.2 | 27.6 | 26.6 | 23.9 | 27.4 | 65.7 | 69.5 | 39.8 | 92.3 | 93.5

Table 8: Accuracy on the dialogue task (MuTual). Besides GPT-3.5, we also
compare ChatGPT with previous popular methods including (i) unsupervised
method: TF-IDF (Lowe et al., 2015); (ii) fine-tuned models: Dual LSTM (Lowe et
al., 2015), DAM (Zhou et al., 2018), SMN (Wu et al., 2017), BERT (Devlin et
al., 2019), RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), fine-tuned GPT-2 (GPT-2-FT) (Radford
et al., 2019), MDFN (Liu et al., 2021), and BiDeN (Li et al., 2022b).

We show the accuracy of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 on the MuTual dataset (multi-turn
dialogue reasoning) in Table 8. As expected, ChatGPT achieves better
performance than GPT-3.5—this is consistent with the impressive dialogue
ability of ChatGPT that has already been observed in the community.

As a concrete example, Figure 5 shows a case where ChatGPT answers correctly
while GPT-3.5 is struggling. We can see that ChatGPT is able to reason more
effectively about the given context without adding irrelevant information.
This reiterates the superior reasoning capability of ChatGPT.

Figure 5: A case where ChatGPT answers correctly while GPT-3.5 makes mistakes.
The correct and wrong responses are colored in green and red, respectively.
GPT-3.5 appends irrelevant information “ _$2 discount for two tickets_ ” which
is not mentioned in the context.

####  4.2.6 Summarization

Model | zero-shot | fine-tuned
---|---|---
ChatGPT | GPT-3.5 | BART | CODA
ROUGE-1 | 42.4 | 44.0 | 49.1 | 50.1
ROUGE-2 | 17.6 | 18.5 | 24.3 | 24.6
ROUGE-L | 33.0 | 34.7 | 45.8 | 46.9

Table 9: ROUGE scores of different models on the summarization dataset:
SAMSum. We compare zero-shot ChatGPT with GPT-3.5 (Zero-Shot), BART-large
(Fine-Tuned) (Lewis et al., 2019), and CODA (fine-tuned) (Chen and Yang,
2021).

For the summarization task, the ROUGE scores of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 on the
SAMSum dataset are reported in Table 9. Surprisingly, ChatGPT underperforms
GPT-3.5 across all measures. We hypothesize that this is due to the fact that
we do not explicitly control the output length of ChatGPT. The responses from
ChatGPT are usually more verbose than those from GPT-3.5, resulting in lower
ROUGE scores.

To test our hypothesis, we calculate the average number of words for ground
truth (20.0), GPT-3.5’s responses (23.3), and ChatGPT’s responses (36.6).
Obviously, ChatGPT’s responses are much longer. This may result from its RLHF
design. Figure 6 shows several cases where the output of ChatGPT is much
longer than that of GPT-3.5. We can observe that there is much redundant
information in the output of ChatGPT.

Furthermore, we conduct controlled experiments with a new instruction that
explicitly limits the output length: “ _Please summarize the given
conversation in no more than 25 words._ ” Although the average number of words
in ChatGPT’s answers is reduced to 22.8, the average score of ROUGE-1/2/L
drops from 31.0 to 30.6. So we conclude that controlling the length of
summaries via zero-shot instructions may harm ChatGPT’s summarization ability.

Figure 6: Comparison of summaries generated by GPT-3.5 and ChatGPT.

####  4.2.7 Named Entity Recognition

Model | Zero-Shot | Fine-Tuned
---|---|---
ChatGPT | GPT-3.5 | Flair | LUKE | ACE
All | 53.2 | 53.5 | 93.0 | 93.9 | 94.6
Loc | 66.7 | 67.1 | 94.0 | - | -
Per | 87.2 | 78.0 | 97.4 | - | -
Org | 51.4 | 50.0 | 91.9 | - | -
Misc | 4.1 | 4.8 | 83.0 | - | -

Table 10: F1 scores of different models on named entity recognition (CoNLL03).
“Loc”, “Per”, “Org”, and “Misc” stand for “Location”, “Person”,
“Organization”, and “Miscellaneous Entity”, respectively. We also compare the
zero-shot ChatGPT with GPT-3.5 (zero-shot) and recent state-of-the-art named
entity recognition models including Flair (Akbik et al., 2018), LUKE (fine-
tuned) (Yamada et al., 2020), and ACE (fine-tuned) (Wang et al., 2020).

Model | Arithmetic | Symbolic | Logical
---|---|---|---
MultiArith | GSM8K | AddSub | AQUA-RAT | SingleEq | SVAMP | Last Letter | Coin Flip | Date | Object
Accuracy | Accuracy | Accuracy
ChatGPT | 95.8 | 78.9 | 88.6 | 53.5 | 91.5 | 77.5 | 70.2 | 65.8 | 72.6 | 58.7
GPT-3.5 | 83.7 | 59.5 | 87.3 | 40.6 | 86.4 | 73.6 | 54.4 | 97.8 | 77.0 | 39.7
Fine-tuning | 96.2 | 63.1 | 93.9 | 45.3 | 93.1 | 79.0 | 99.4 | 100.0 | 65.3 | 23.9

Model | Commonsense | NLI | QA | Dialogue | Summarization | NER | Sentiment
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
CSQA | StrategyQA | COPA | RTE | CB | BoolQ | MuTual | SAMsum | CoNLL03 | SST2
Accuracy | Accuracy | Accuracy | Accuracy | ROUGE | F1 | Accuracy
ChatGPT | 73.7 | 61.1 | 82.0 | 85.9 | 89.3 | 87.3 | 76.2 | 31.0 | 53.2 | 93.7
GPT-3.5 | 74.9 | 61.1 | 93.0 | 80.1 | 83.9 | 84.7 | 75.2 | 32.4 | 53.5 | 88.8
Fine-tuning | 82.3 | 77.8 | 95.0 | 95.8 | 100.0 | 91.2 | 93.5 | 40.5 | 94.6 | 97.5

Table 11:  Performance of ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 and the best previous full-set or
few-shot fine-tuning method (among those investigated in this work) on
different tasks. For each reasoning dataset, the better result between zero-
shot and zero-shot chain-of-thought is shown.

Table 10 reports the zero-shot performance of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 on CoNLL03,
a widely-used named entity recognition dataset. We can see that the overall
performance of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 is quite similar. Unfortunately, they fail
to achieve satisfactory results on each named entity type compared to previous
fine-tuning methods. This shows that current LLMs, although deemed as
generalist models, still face challenges in solving specific tasks, such as
sequence tagging.

Specifically, ChatGPT outperforms GPT-3.5 for classes “Per” (“Person”) and
“Org” (“Organization”) while performing worse than GPT-3.5 on the class “Loc”
(“Location”). Neither model shows practical value in identifying the “Misc”
(“Miscellaneous Entity”) class. Figure 7 illustrates several failure cases of
“Misc”. On the left part of the figure, LLMs recognize “Bowling” as a
miscellaneous entity while the ground truth is ‘None’. However, “Bowling” does
belong to the entity type “ball”, which can be regarded as a miscellaneous
type. On the right part, although “AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE” is indeed an
organization, it is not recognized by the ground truth annotation, indicating
that the ground truth annotation might need cleaning (although in rare cases).
Therefore, the poor performance on the class “Miscellaneous Entity” may be
partly due to the different understanding on the scope of entities between
LLMs and the ground truth annotation of the specific task dataset.

In addition, we design new instructions that guide GPT-3.5 to generate
different types of entities separately, leading to a much lower F1 score
(34.8). This reiterates the challenges faced by LLMs in solving sequence
tagging tasks.

Figure 7: Example failure cases for the “Miscellaneous Entity” class (left for
ChatGPT and right for GPT-3.5).

####  4.2.8 Sentiment Analysis

Model | Zero-Shot | Fine-Tuned
---|---|---
ChatGPT | GPT-3.5 | FLAN | T5-11B
All | 93.7 | 88.8 | 94.6 | 97.5
Pos | 90.8 | 88.1 | - | -
Neg | 96.7 | 89.5 | - | -

Table 12: Accuracy ($\%$) of different models on sentiment analysis (SST2). We
compare zero-shot ChatGPT with recent models including GPT-3.5 (zero-shot)
(Brown et al., 2020), FLAN (zero-shot) (Wei et al., 2021), and T5-11B (fine-
tuned) (Raffel et al., 2019).

Table 12 compares the accuracy of different models on the sentiment analysis
dataset: SST2. ChatGPT achieves much better performance than GPT-3.5. To look
into why ChatGPT outperforms GPT-3.5, we calculate the per-class accuracy of
both models. We can observe that the performance of ChatGPT on different
classes is unbalanced. It outperforms GPT-3.5 by a large margin on negative
samples while the performance on positively-labeled data comes close to that
of GPT-3.5. We hypothesize that this difference is caused by the different
training data of ChatGPT and GPT-3.5. In addition, although we explicitly
specified that the answer should be exact “positive” or “negative” in task
instructions (Figure 2), ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 still output some other answers,
e.g., “neutral” and “mixed”, which partly explains why they perform much worse
than FLAN.

###  4.3 ChatGPT v.s. Full-Set or Few-Shot Fine-Tuning

Table 11 shows the performance comparison between ChatGPT and the best
previous full-set or few-shot fine-tuning method (among those reported in this
work) for each individual task. ChatGPT underperforms previous fine-tuning
methods in most cases, indicating that ChatGPT is still far from a perfect
generalist.

##  5 Conclusion

We have empirically studied the zero-shot learning capabilities of ChatGPT on
a large, diverse collection of datasets covering representative task
categories. Extensive experimental results and analysis demonstrated the
effectiveness and current limitations of ChatGPT in different types of NLP
tasks. For example, as a powerful generalist model, on one hand, ChatGPT is
good at reasoning and dialogue tasks; on the other hand, ChatGPT still faces
challenges when solving specific tasks, such as sequence tagging. We hope that
this study can inspire future works, such as leveraging the reasoning and
dialogue capabilities of ChatGPT in NLP tasks and addressing limitations of
generalist models in tasks where they currently struggle with.

## Limitations

This work is an empirical study on the zero-shot learning ability of
ChatGPT333experiments done between 06/15/2023 and 06/21/2023, and it has
several limitations. First, due to the cost of ChatGPT, this work excludes
larger-scale datasets and more task categories, which might prevent further
insights. Besides, we report the best result in the corresponding paper for
models that are not publicly available (e.g., PaLM) and report the result
based on the best prompt found for public models, which is consistent with the
previous work (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022). A
further improvement could be to explore more diverse prompt templates.
Finally, it still remains unclear to us how ChatGPT’s few-shot in-context
learning capability compares with its zero-shot learning ability across
different tasks.

## References

  * Akbik et al. (2018) Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018.  Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling.  In _Proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics_ , pages 1638–1649.
  * BIG-bench collaboration (2021) BIG-bench collaboration BIG-bench collaboration. 2021.  Beyond the imitation game: Measuring and extrapolating the capabilities of language models.  https://github.com/google/BIG-bench.  "Accessed: 2022-05-07".
  * Brown et al. (2020) Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020.  Language models are few-shot learners.  In _Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual_.
  * Chen and Yang (2021) Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2021.  Simple conversational data augmentation for semi-supervised abstractive dialogue summarization.  In _Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing_ , pages 6605–6616, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Chen et al. (2022) Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W Cohen. 2022.  Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588_.
  * Chowdhery et al. (2022a) Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022a.  Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.
  * Chowdhery et al. (2022b) Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022b.  Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311_.
  * Christiano et al. (2017) Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017.  Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.  _Advances in neural information processing systems_ , 30.
  * Chung et al. (2022) Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022.  Scaling instruction-finetuned language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416_.
  * Clark et al. (2019) Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019.  BoolQ: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions.  In _Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)_ , pages 2924–2936, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Cobbe et al. (2021) Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021.  Training verifiers to solve math word problems.
  * Cui et al. (2020) Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Yue Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2020.  MuTual: A dataset for multi-turn dialogue reasoning.  In _Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics_ , pages 1406–1416, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Dagan et al. (2006) Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006.  The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge.  In _Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment: First PASCAL Machine Learning Challenges Workshop, MLCW 2005, Southampton, UK, April 11-13, 2005, Revised Selected Papers_ , pages 177–190. Springer.
  * De Marneffe et al. (2019) Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019.  The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse.  In _proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung_ , volume 23, pages 107–124.
  * Devlin et al. (2019) Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019.  BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding.  In _Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)_ , pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Ding et al. (2022) Bosheng Ding, Chengwei Qin, Linlin Liu, Lidong Bing, Shafiq Joty, and Boyang Li. 2022.  Is gpt-3 a good data annotator? _arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10450_.
  * Fu et al. (2022) Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2022.  Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00720_.
  * Fu et al. (2017) Zhenyong Fu, Tao Xiang, Elyor Kodirov, and Shaogang Gong. 2017.  Zero-shot learning on semantic class prototype graph.  _IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence_ , 40(8):2009–2022.
  * Geva et al. (2021) Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021.  Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies.  _Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics_ , 9:346–361.
  * Gliwa et al. (2019) Bogdan Gliwa, Iwona Mochol, Maciej Biesek, and Aleksander Wawer. 2019.  Samsum corpus: A human-annotated dialogue dataset for abstractive summarization.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12237_.
  * Goertzel (2014) Ben Goertzel. 2014.  Artificial general intelligence: concept, state of the art, and future prospects.  _Journal of Artificial General Intelligence_ , 5(1):1.
  * Guo et al. (2023) Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023.  How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07597_.
  * He et al. (2020) Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2020.  Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03654_.
  * Ho et al. (2022) Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. 2022.  Large language models are reasoning teachers.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10071_.
  * Hoffmann et al. (2022) Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022.  Training compute-optimal large language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556_.
  * Hosseini et al. (2014) Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Oren Etzioni, and Nate Kushman. 2014.  Learning to solve arithmetic word problems with verb categorization.  In _Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)_ , pages 523–533, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Khot et al. (2022) Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022.  Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02406_.
  * Kojima et al. (2022) Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022.  Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.  In _Thirty-sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022)_.
  * Koncel-Kedziorski et al. (2015) Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ashish Sabharwal, Oren Etzioni, and Siena Dumas Ang. 2015.  Parsing algebraic word problems into equations.  _Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics_ , 3:585–597.
  * Lewis et al. (2019) Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019.  Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension.
  * Lewkowycz et al. (2022) Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. 2022.  Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14858_.
  * Li et al. (2022a) Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022a.  On the advance of making language models better reasoners.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02336_.
  * Li et al. (2022b) Yiyang Li, Hai Zhao, and Zhuosheng Zhang. 2022b.  Back to the future: Bidirectional information decoupling network for multi-turn dialogue modeling.  In _The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2022)_.
  * Liang et al. (2022) Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. 2022.  Holistic evaluation of language models.  _ArXiv preprint_ , abs/2211.09110.
  * Ling et al. (2017) Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. 2017.  Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems.  In _Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 158–167, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Liu et al. (2021) Longxiang Liu, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2021.  Filling the gap of utterance-aware and speaker-aware representation for multi-turn dialogue.  In _Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence_ , volume 35, pages 13406–13414.
  * Liu et al. (2019) Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019.  Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692_.
  * Lowe et al. (2015) Ryan Lowe, Nissan Pow, Iulian Vlad Serban, and Joelle Pineau. 2015.  The ubuntu dialogue corpus: A large dataset for research in unstructured multi-turn dialogue systems.  In _Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue_ , pages 285–294.
  * Lu et al. (2022a) Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tony Xia, Liang Qiu, Kai-Wei Chang, Song-Chun Zhu, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022a.  Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering.  _ArXiv preprint_ , abs/2209.09513.
  * Lu et al. (2022b) Pan Lu, Liang Qiu, Kai-Wei Chang, Ying Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022b.  Dynamic prompt learning via policy gradient for semi-structured mathematical reasoning.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14610_.
  * Magister et al. (2022) Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2022.  Teaching small language models to reason.  _ArXiv preprint_ , abs/2212.08410.
  * Min et al. (2022) Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022.  Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? _arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837_.
  * Mishra et al. (2022) Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022.  Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions.  In _Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 3470–3487.
  * Ouyang et al. (2022) Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022.  Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155_.
  * Patel et al. (2021) Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021.  Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In _Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies_ , pages 2080–2094, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Qin and Joty (2022a) Chengwei Qin and Shafiq Joty. 2022a.  Continual few-shot relation learning via embedding space regularization and data augmentation.  In _Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 2776–2789, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Qin and Joty (2022b) Chengwei Qin and Shafiq Joty. 2022b.  LFPT5: A unified framework for lifelong few-shot language learning based on prompt tuning of t5.  In _International Conference on Learning Representations_.
  * Qin et al. (2023a) Chengwei Qin, Shafiq Joty, and Chen Chen. 2023a.  Lifelong sequence generation with dynamic module expansion and adaptation.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09886_.
  * Qin et al. (2023b) Chengwei Qin, Shafiq Joty, Qian Li, and Ruochen Zhao. 2023b.  Learning to initialize: Can meta learning improve cross-task generalization in prompt tuning? In _Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 11802–11832, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Qin et al. (2023c) Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Anirudh Dagar, and Wenming Ye. 2023c.  In-context learning with iterative demonstration selection.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09881_.
  * Radford et al. (2019) Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019.  Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.  _OpenAI blog_ , page 9.
  * Rae et al. (2021) Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021.  Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446_.
  * Raffel et al. (2019) Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019.  Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.
  * Raffel et al. (2020) Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020.  Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.  _JMLR_ , 21(140):1–67.
  * Roemmele et al. (2011) Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S Gordon. 2011.  Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In _AAAI spring symposium: logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning_ , pages 90–95.
  * Roy and Roth (2015) Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015.  Solving general arithmetic word problems.  In _Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing_ , pages 1743–1752, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Rubin et al. (2022) Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022.  Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning.  In _Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies_ , pages 2655–2671.
  * Sang and De Meulder (2003) Erik F Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003.  Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition.  _arXiv preprint cs/0306050_.
  * Sanh et al. (2021a) Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021a.  Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization.
  * Sanh et al. (2021b) Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. 2021b.  Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207_.
  * Shi et al. (2022) Freda Shi, Mirac Suzgun, Markus Freitag, Xuezhi Wang, Suraj Srivats, Soroush Vosoughi, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Sebastian Ruder, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022.  Language models are multilingual chain-of-thought reasoners.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03057_.
  * Smith et al. (2022) Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, et al. 2022.  Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing nlg 530b, a large-scale generative language model.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11990_.
  * Socher et al. (2013) Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, A. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013.  Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank.  In _Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing_.
  * Srivastava et al. (2022) Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022.  Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615_.
  * Talmor et al. (2019) Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019.  CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge.  In _Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)_ , pages 4149–4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Tay et al. (2022) Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022.  Unifying language learning paradigms.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131_.
  * Wang et al. (2018) Xiaolong Wang, Yufei Ye, and Abhinav Gupta. 2018.  Zero-shot recognition via semantic embeddings and knowledge graphs.  In _Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition_ , pages 6857–6866.
  * Wang et al. (2020) Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Nguyen Bach, Tao Wang, Zhongqiang Huang, Fei Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2020.  Automated concatenation of embeddings for structured prediction.
  * Wang et al. (2022a) Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a.  Rationale-augmented ensembles in language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.00747_.
  * Wang et al. (2022b) Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022b.  Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171_.
  * Webson and Pavlick (2022) Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2022.  Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? In _Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies_ , pages 2300–2344, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Wei et al. (2021) Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021.  Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652_.
  * Wei et al. (2022) Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022.  Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.  In _Thirty-sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022)_.
  * Wu et al. (2017) Yu Wu, Wei Wu, Chen Xing, Ming Zhou, and Zhoujun Li. 2017.  Sequential matching network: A new architecture for multi-turn response selection in retrieval-based chatbots.  In _Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 496–505.
  * Yamada et al. (2020) Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020.  Luke: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention.
  * Ye and Guo (2017) Meng Ye and Yuhong Guo. 2017.  Zero-shot classification with discriminative semantic representation learning.  In _Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition_ , pages 7140–7148.
  * Zelikman et al. (2022) Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, and Noah D Goodman. 2022.  Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14465_.
  * Zhang et al. (2021) Aston Zhang, Zachary C Lipton, Mu Li, and Alexander J Smola. 2021.  Dive into deep learning.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11342_.
  * Zhang et al. (2017) Li Zhang, Tao Xiang, and Shaogang Gong. 2017.  Learning a deep embedding model for zero-shot learning.  In _Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition_ , pages 2021–2030.
  * Zhang et al. (2022) Zhuosheng Zhang, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Yang Liu, Hai Zhao, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022.  Task compass: Scaling multi-task pre-training with task prefix.  In _Findings of The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2022)_.
  * Zhang et al. (2023a) Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2023a.  Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models.  In _The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023)_.
  * Zhang et al. (2023b) Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, Hai Zhao, George Karypis, and Alex Smola. 2023b.  Multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning in language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00923_.
  * Zhao et al. (2023) Ruochen Zhao, Xingxuan Li, Shafiq Joty, Chengwei Qin, and Lidong Bing. 2023.  Verify-and-edit: A knowledge-enhanced chain-of-thought framework.  In _Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 5823–5840, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Zhou et al. (2022) Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2022.  Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625_.
  * Zhou et al. (2018) Xiangyang Zhou, Lu Li, Daxiang Dong, Yi Liu, Ying Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Dianhai Yu, and Hua Wu. 2018.  Multi-turn response selection for chatbots with deep attention matching network.  In _Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 1118–1127.

##  Appendix A Appendix

###  A.1 Example Input and Output Pairs of ChatGPT

Table 13:  Example input and output pairs for MultiArith (arithmetic
reasoning).  Q: Bianca had 45 coloring books. If she gave away 6 of them, but
then bought 20 more, how many would she have total?
---
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 59.
Q: Janet was playing a video game and had 47 lives. In a hard part of the game
she lost 23 lives. If she got 46 more lives in the next level, how many lives
would she have?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 70 lives. You can find this by starting
with the number of lives she had at the beginning (47) and subtracting the
number of lives she lost (23). Then add the number of lives she gained (46) to
that number: 47 - 23 + 46 = 70.
Q: A toy store had 17 giant stuffed bears in stock when they got another
shipment with 10 bears in it. The put the bears onto shelves with 9 on each
shelf. How many shelves did they use?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 3\. Explanation: The toy store started with
17 bears, and got another 10, for a total of 17+10 = 27 bears. To put these
bears on shelves, they need 27 bears / 9 bears per shelf = 3 shelves.
Q: A group of 3 friends went into a restaurant. The chef already had 6 chicken
wings cooked but cooked 3 more for the group. If they each got the same amount
how many would each person get?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 3 chicken wings per person.
Q: George had 28 socks. If he threw away 4 old ones that didn’t fit and bought
36 new ones, how many socks would he have?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 60\. George would have 60 socks. (28 + 36 =
60)
Q: At the town carnival Billy rode the ferris wheel 7 times and the bumper
cars 3 times. If each ride cost 5 tickets, how many tickets did he use?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 40 tickets.
Q: Kaleb had saved up 21 dollars. If he received another 15 dollars for his
allowance, how many 6 dollar toys could he buy?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 5\. He would have a total of 21 + 15 = 36
dollars, and could buy 36 / 6 = 6 toys.
Q: Tom was putting his spare change into piles. He had 2 piles of quarters and
4 piles of dimes. If each pile had 5 coins in it, how many coins did he have
total?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 50 coins. (2 piles of quarters * 5 coins
per pile = 10 quarters) + (4 piles of dimes * 5 coins per pile = 20 dimes) =
50 coins.
Q: Isabel uploaded 25 pictures to Facebook. She put 10 pics into one album and
put the rest into 5 different albums. How many pictures were in each album?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 10 in one album and 5 in each of the other
5 albums.
Q: For homework Faye had 13 math problems and 2 spelling problems. If she can
finish 3 problems in an hour how long will it take her to finish all the
problems?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 8 hours. You can get this by adding the
number of math problems (13) and spelling problems (2) to get a total of 15
problems. Then divide the total number of problems (15) by the number of
problems Faye can finish in an hour (3) to get 5. Finally, divide 5 by 1 hour
to get the answer of 5 hours.
Table 14:  Example input and output pairs for MultiArith with chain-of-thought
(arithmetic reasoning).  Q: Bianca had 45 coloring books. If she gave away 6
of them, but then bought 20 more, how many would she have total?
---
A: Let’s think step by step. First, Bianca had 45 coloring books. Then, she
gave away 6 of them, so she had 45 - 6 = 39 coloring books. Finally, she
bought 20 more, so she has 39 + 20 = 59 coloring books. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 59
Q: Janet was playing a video game and had 47 lives. In a hard part of the game
she lost 23 lives. If she got 46 more lives in the next level, how many lives
would she have?
A: Let’s think step by step. Janet had 47 lives, then lost 23, so she had
47-23=24 lives. Then, she got 46 more lives, so she had 24+46=70 lives.
Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 70
Q: A toy store had 17 giant stuffed bears in stock when they got another
shipment with 10 bears in it. The put the bears onto shelves with 9 on each
shelf. How many shelves did they use?
A: Let’s think step by step. 17 + 10 = 27 bears. 27 bears / 9 bears/shelf = 3
shelves. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 3
Q: A group of 3 friends went into a restaurant. The chef already had 6 chicken
wings cooked but cooked 3 more for the group. If they each got the same amount
how many would each person get?
A: Let’s think step by step. Each person would get 3 chicken wings. Therefore,
the answer (arabic numerals) is 3
Q: George had 28 socks. If he threw away 4 old ones that didn’t fit and bought
36 new ones, how many socks would he have?
A: Let’s think step by step. George had 28 socks, then threw away 4, so he has
28-4=24. Then he bought 36 new ones, so he has 24+36=60 socks. Therefore, the
answer (arabic numerals) is 60.
Q: At the town carnival Billy rode the ferris wheel 7 times and the bumper
cars 3 times. If each ride cost 5 tickets, how many tickets did he use?
A: Let’s think step by step. Billy rode the ferris wheel 7 times, so he used 7
* 5 = 35 tickets. He also rode the bumper cars 3 times, so he used 3 * 5 = 15
tickets. Therefore, Billy used 35 + 15 = 50 tickets. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 50
Q: Kaleb had saved up 21 dollars. If he received another 15 dollars for his
allowance, how many 6 dollar toys could he buy?
A: Let’s think step by step. Kaleb had 21 + 15 = 36 dollars. He can buy 36 / 6
= 6 toys. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 6
Q: Tom was putting his spare change into piles. He had 2 piles of quarters and
4 piles of dimes. If each pile had 5 coins in it, how many coins did he have
total?
A: Let’s think step by step. Tom had 2 piles of quarters, which means he had 2
* 5 = 10 quarters. He also had 4 piles of dimes, so he had 4 * 5 = 20 dimes.
The total number of coins he had is 10 + 20 = 30 coins. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 30
Q: Isabel uploaded 25 pictures to Facebook. She put 10 pics into one album and
put the rest into 5 different albums. How many pictures were in each album?
A: Let’s think step by step. Isabel put 10 pics into one album, so each of the
5 other albums had 25-10=15 pics. Answer: 15 pics/album. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 15.
Q: For homework Faye had 13 math problems and 2 spelling problems. If she can
finish 3 problems in an hour how long will it take her to finish all the
problems?
A: Let’s think step by step. 13 math problems + 2 spelling problems = 15
problems. 15 problems / 3 problems per hour = 5 hours. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 5 hours.
Table 15:  Example input and output pairs for GSM8K (arithmetic reasoning).
Q: A store offers sandwiches in 3 different package sizes: the first package
with 2 sandwiches for $3, the second with 4 sandwiches for $6, and a third
with 8 sandwiches, but the price is not indicated. Knowing that the prices are
proportional, how much will the package with 8 sandwiches cost?
---
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 12 dollars.
Q: The ratio of the electric poles and electric wires needed to connect and
supply the electricity in a certain neighborhood is 1:3. If the total number
of electric wires needed to connect the electricity in the neighborhood is 45,
calculate the total number of electric poles required by an electric company
to supply the electricity in the neighborhood.
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 15 electric poles are required. This is
calculated by dividing the total number of electric wires (45) by the ratio of
electric poles to electric wires (1:3). 45 / (1/3) = 45 * 3 = 135, and 45
electric poles are needed.
Q: My kitchen floor has a total area of 200 SqFt. I want to install new square
floor tiles that cost $12 each, and each tile side is 1ft in length. How much
will it cost me to renovate my kitchen floor?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 2400 dollars. Explanation: The area of the
kitchen floor is 200 sq ft, and each tile is 1 sq ft in area (1 ft x 1 ft = 1
sq ft). So the number of tiles needed to cover the kitchen floor is 200 sq ft
/ 1 sq ft/tile = 200 tiles. At a cost of $12 per tile, the total cost to cover
the kitchen floor with these tiles would be 200 tiles x $12/tile = $2400.
Q: Jeff and Brad are trying to divide 100 dollars between them. Jeff gets 4
times as much as Brad. How much does Jeff get in dollars?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 80 dollars.
Q: To fund his store, Mr. Josue solicited money from two banks. The first bank
gave him $4000, and the second company gave him twice as much. If he initially
had $5000 in capital, how much capital does he have now?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is $12000. The second bank gave him $4000 x 2
= $8000, so in total he received $4000 + $8000 = $12000 from the banks. Adding
this to his initial capital of $5000, he now has a total of $12000 + $5000 =
$17000.
Q: John drives for 3 hours at a speed of 60 mph and then turns around because
he realizes he forgot something very important at home. He tries to get home
in 4 hours but spends the first 2 hours in standstill traffic. He spends the
next half-hour driving at a speed of 30mph, before being able to drive the
remaining time of the 4 hours going at 80 mph. How far is he from home at the
end of those 4 hours?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is It is not possible to determine the
distance John is from home at the end of the 4 hours based on the information
provided. This is because the information provided only describes the time and
speed of John’s travel, but not the distance.
Q: Mazie has 52 marbles and gives them to twins, Dallas and Darla. If Dallas
has a total of 21 marbles after dropping 4 of them in the playground, how many
did Mazie give to Darla?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 31 marbles.
Q: There are 96 fourth-graders at Small Tree School. 43 of them are girls. On
Friday, 5 fourth-grade girls and 4 fourth-grade boys were absent. How many
fourth grade boys were at Small Tree School on Friday?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 43 boys. To find out, you can start with
the total number of fourth-graders (96) and subtract the number of girls (43)
to find the number of boys. Then subtract the number of absent boys (4) from
that number to find the number of boys present on Friday. 96 fourth-graders -
43 girls = 53 boys. 53 boys - 4 absent boys = 49 present boys.
Table 16:  Example input and output pairs for GSM8K with chain-of-thought
(arithmetic reasoning).  Q: A store offers sandwiches in 3 different package
sizes: the first package with 2 sandwiches for $3, the second with 4
sandwiches for $6, and a third with 8 sandwiches, but the price is not
indicated. Knowing that the prices are proportional, how much will the package
with 8 sandwiches cost?
---
A: Let’s think step by step. The first package costs $3 for 2 sandwiches, so
each sandwich costs $3/2 = $1.50. The second package costs $6 for 4
sandwiches, so each sandwich costs $6/4 = $1.50. Since the price of each
sandwich is the same, the third package with 8 sandwiches will cost 8 * $1.50
= $12. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is $12
Q: Jeff and Brad are trying to divide 100 dollars between them. Jeff gets 4
times as much as Brad. How much does Jeff get in dollars?
A: Let’s think step by step. First, let’s call Brad’s share "x". If Jeff gets
4 times as much as Brad, then Jeff gets 4x dollars. So, we know that x + 4x =
100 dollars. Combining like terms, we get 5x = 100 dollars. Dividing both
sides by 5, we find that x = 20 dollars. So, Jeff gets 4 * 20 = 80 dollars.
Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is Jeff gets 80 dollars.
Q: To fund his store, Mr. Josue solicited money from two banks. The first bank
gave him $4000, and the second company gave him twice as much. If he initially
had $5000 in capital, how much capital does he have now?
A: Let’s think step by step. The first bank gave Mr. Josue $4000. The second
bank gave him twice as much, which is 2*$4000 = $8000. So Mr. Josue received a
total of $4000 + $8000 = $12000 from the two banks. Adding this to his initial
capital of $5000, he now has a total of $12000 + $5000 = $17000 in capital.
Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 17000.
Q: John drives for 3 hours at a speed of 60 mph and then turns around because
he realizes he forgot something very important at home. He tries to get home
in 4 hours but spends the first 2 hours in standstill traffic. He spends the
next half-hour driving at a speed of 30mph, before being able to drive the
remaining time of the 4 hours going at 80 mph. How far is he from home at the
end of those 4 hours?
A: Let’s think step by step. First, John drove for 3 hours at 60 mph, so he
covered a distance of 3*60 = 180 miles. Then, he turned around and drove for 2
hours in standstill traffic, which covered no distance. After that, he drove
for 0.5 hours at 30 mph, covering a distance of 0.5*30 = 15 miles. Finally, he
drove for 1.5 hours at 80 mph, covering a distance of 1.5*80 = 120 miles. So
in total, he covered a distance of 180 + 0 + 15 + 120 = 315 miles. Therefore,
the answer (arabic numerals) is 315 miles.
Q: Mazie has 52 marbles and gives them to twins, Dallas and Darla. If Dallas
has a total of 21 marbles after dropping 4 of them in the playground, how many
did Mazie give to Darla?
A: Let’s think step by step. Dallas originally had 21 + 4 = 25 marbles. So,
the total number of marbles Mazie gave to both twins is 25 + (total number of
marbles Darla has) = 52. Therefore, Darla has 52 - 25 = 27 marbles. Therefore,
the answer (arabic numerals) is 27.
Q: There are 96 fourth-graders at Small Tree School. 43 of them are girls. On
Friday, 5 fourth-grade girls and 4 fourth-grade boys were absent. How many
fourth grade boys were at Small Tree School on Friday?
A: Let’s think step by step. First, we know that there are 43 girls in the
fourth grade at Small Tree School. If 5 of them were absent on Friday, then
there were 43 - 5 = 38 girls present. Next, we know that there are 96 fourth-
graders total, and we know that 43 of them are girls. So, 96 - 43 = 53 fourth-
grade boys. Finally, if 4 of the 53 fourth-grade boys were absent on Friday,
then 53 - 4 = 49 fourth-grade boys were present on Friday. Therefore, the
answer (arabic numerals) is 49.
Table 17:  Example input and output pairs for AddSub (arithmetic reasoning).
Q: Shannon and her family use up a lot of strawberry and blueberry jelly ,
since they eat toast every morning . At the moment , they have a combined
total of 6310 grams of jelly . If they have 4518 grams of blueberry jelly ,
how many grams of strawberry jelly do they have ?
---
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 1792 grams.
Q: Students at Arcadia schools are participating in a coat drive . 9437 coats
have been collected so far . 6922 coats were collected from the high schools ,
and the rest from the elementary schools . How many coats were collected at
the elementary schools ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 2515 coats were collected at the elementary
schools. This can be found by subtracting the number of coats collected from
the high schools (6922) from the total number of coats collected (9437). 9437
- 6922 = 2515.
Q: An oil pipe in the sea broke . Before engineers started to fix the pipe ,
6522 liters of oil leaked into the water . While the engineers worked , the
pipe leaked 5165 liters of oil . In all , how many liters of oil leaked into
the water ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 11,687 liters of oil leaked into the water.
This can be determined by adding the initial amount of oil leaked (6522
liters) to the amount leaked while the engineers worked (5165 liters).
Q: Tim ’s cat had kittens . He gave 3 to Jessica and 6 to Sara . He now has 9
kittens . How many kittens did he have to start with ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 18\. Tim gave away 3 kittens to Jessica and
6 kittens to Sara, which totals 9 kittens. To find out how many kittens he had
to start with, you add the number of kittens he gave away to the number he
still has, which is 9 + 9 = 18 kittens.
Q: Mike went to 15 basketball games this year , but missed 41 . He went to 39
games last year . How many basketball games did Mike go to in total ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 53 games. (Mike went to 15 games this year
+ 39 games last year = 54 games - the 1 game he missed = 53 games total)
Q: A waitress put leftover tarts into the fridge on Thursday night . She
noticed that the restaurant had 0.08333333333333333 tart filled with cherries
, 0.75 tart filled with blueberries , and 0.08333333333333333 tart filled with
peaches . How many leftover tarts did the restaurant have in all ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 1.0833333333333333 tarts total.
Q: There are 7 crayons in the drawer and 6 crayons on the desk . Sam placed 4
crayons and 8 scissors on the desk . How many crayons are now there in total ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 15 crayons.
Q: Bonnie ’s science class recorded the rainfall each day . They recorded
0.16666666666666666 centimeter of rain on Monday , 0.4166666666666667
centimeter of rain on Tuesday , and 0.08333333333333333 centimeter of rain on
Wednesday . How many centimeters of rain did the class record in all ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 0.7 centimeters of rain.
Table 18:  Example input and output pairs for AddSub with chain-of-thought
(arithmetic reasoning).  Q: Shannon and her family use up a lot of strawberry
and blueberry jelly , since they eat toast every morning . At the moment ,
they have a combined total of 6310 grams of jelly . If they have 4518 grams of
blueberry jelly , how many grams of strawberry jelly do they have ?
---
A: Let’s think step by step. The total amount of jelly they have is 6310
grams, and of that, 4518 grams is blueberry jelly. To find out how much
strawberry jelly they have, we can subtract the amount of blueberry jelly from
the total amount of jelly: 6310 grams (total jelly) - 4518 grams (blueberry
jelly) = 1792 grams (strawberry jelly). Therefore, the answer (arabic
numerals) is 1792.
Q: Students at Arcadia schools are participating in a coat drive . 9437 coats
have been collected so far . 6922 coats were collected from the high schools ,
and the rest from the elementary schools . How many coats were collected at
the elementary schools ?
A: Let’s think step by step. Coats collected at elementary schools = Total
coats collected - Coats collected at high schools = 9437 - 6922 = 2515.
Answer: 2515. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 2515.
Q: Tim ’s cat had kittens . He gave 3 to Jessica and 6 to Sara . He now has 9
kittens . How many kittens did he have to start with ?
A: Let’s think step by step. Tim had 9 kittens remaining after giving 3 to
Jessica and 6 to Sara. To find out how many kittens he had to start with, we
need to add the number of kittens he gave away to the number of kittens he
still has. 9 (remaining kittens) + 3 (kittens given to Jessica) + 6 (kittens
given to Sara) = 18 total kittens. Therefore, Tim had 18 kittens to start
with. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 18.
Q: Mike went to 15 basketball games this year , but missed 41 . He went to 39
games last year . How many basketball games did Mike go to in total ?
A: Let’s think step by step. Mike went to 15 games this year + 39 games last
year = 54 total games. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 54.
Q: There are 7 crayons in the drawer and 6 crayons on the desk . Sam placed 4
crayons and 8 scissors on the desk . How many crayons are now there in total ?
A: Let’s think step by step. There were 7 crayons in the drawer and 6 crayons
on the desk, for a total of 7 + 6 = 13 crayons. Sam placed 4 crayons and 8
scissors on the desk, bringing the total number of crayons on the desk to 6 +
4 = 10. Therefore, there are now a total of 13 (initial total) + 10 (new
crayons on the desk) = 23 crayons in total. Therefore, the answer (arabic
numerals) is 23 crayons.
Q: Bonnie ’s science class recorded the rainfall each day . They recorded
0.16666666666666666 centimeter of rain on Monday , 0.4166666666666667
centimeter of rain on Tuesday , and 0.08333333333333333 centimeter of rain on
Wednesday . How many centimeters of rain did the class record in all ?
A: Let’s think step by step. Monday: 0.16666666666666666 cm. Tuesday:
0.4166666666666667 cm. Wednesday: 0.08333333333333333 cm. Total:
0.6666666666666666 cm. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 0.67 cm.
Table 19:  Example input and output pairs for AQUA-RAT (arithmetic reasoning).
Q: A car finishes a journey in 20 hours at the speed of 60 km/hr. If the same
distance is to be covered in 10 hours, how much speed does the car gain?
Answer Choices: (A) 80 kmph (B) 50 kmph (C) 120 kmph (D) 70 kmph (E) 80 kmph
---
A: Among A through E, the answer is C) 120 kmph.
Q: Q is as much younger than R as he is older than T. If the sum of the ages
of R and T is 50 years. What is definitely the difference between R and Q’s
age? Answer Choices: (A) 22 (B) 27 (C) 29 (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of
the above
A: Among A through E, the answer is (D) Cannot be determined. The information
provided does not give enough information to determine the specific difference
between R and Q’s age.
Q: What is 60% of 30% of 1400 grams? Answer Choices: (A) 450 gms (B) 100 gms
(C) 252 gms (D) 240 gms (E) None of these
A: Among A through E, the answer is (C) 252 gms. To calculate this, first
calculate 30% of 1400 grams which is (30/100)*1400 = 420 grams. Then take 60%
of 420 grams which is (60/100)*420 = 252 grams.
Q: An electric pole, 14 metres high, casts a shadow of 10 metres. Find the
height of a tree that casts a shadow of 15 metres under similar conditions.
Answer Choices: (A) 21 (B) 22 (C) 20 (D) 23 (E) 24
A: Among A through E, the answer is (B) 22. This is a similar triangles
problem. If we let "x" be the height of the tree, then we can set up the
following proportion: (14/10) = (x/15) Solving for x, we get: x = (14*15)/10 x
= 21 Therefore, the height of the tree is 22m.
Q: Alice wants to put up fencing around three sides of her rectangular yard
and leave one side of 10 meters unfenced. If the yard has an area of 240
square meters, how many meters of fencing does she need? Answer Choices: (A)
58 (B) 62 (C) 66 (D) 70 (E) 74
A: Among A through E, the answer is (C) 66 meters of fencing.
Q: At my favorite fruit stand, an orange costs 18 dollars, a pineapple costs
27 dollars, and a grape costs 15 dollars. Using the same logic, can you tell
how much a mango costs? Answer Choices: (A) 22 dollars (B) 15 dollars (C) 20
dollars (D) 18 dollars (E) 10 dollars
A: Among A through E, the answer is I’m sorry, I am not able to determine the
cost of a mango based on the given information. The prices of the orange,
pineapple, and grape do not provide enough information to infer the cost of a
mango.
Q: A rectangle has a length of 8 centimeters and a width of 3 centimeters.
Find the perimeter. Answer Choices: (A) 18cm (B) 22cm (C) 20cm (D) 30cm (E)
28cm
A: Among A through E, the answer is (E) 28cm. To find the perimeter of a
rectangle, you add up the lengths of all four sides. In this case, the two
sides of length 8cm and the two sides of width 3cm, so: 8cm + 8cm + 3cm + 3cm
= 28cm
Table 20:  Example input and output pairs for AQUA-RAT with chain-of-thought
(arithmetic reasoning).  Q: A car finishes a journey in 20 hours at the speed
of 60 km/hr. If the same distance is to be covered in 10 hours, how much speed
does the car gain? Answer Choices: (A) 80 kmph (B) 50 kmph (C) 120 kmph (D) 70
kmph (E) 80 kmph
---
A: Let’s think step by step. We know that the car’s original speed is 60 km/hr
and it took 20 hours to complete the journey. To find the distance the car
traveled, we can use the formula: distance = speed x time. So, distance = 60
km/hr x 20 hours = 1200 km. Now, we know that the car wants to cover the same
distance in 10 hours. To find the new speed, we can use the same formula, but
with the new time: speed = distance / time = 1200 km / 10 hours = 120 km/hr.
Therefore, the car gains a speed of 120 km/hr - 60 km/hr = 60 km/hr. So, the
answer is (C) 120 kmph. Therefore, among A through E, the answer is (C) 120
kmph.
Q: Last year, a Home Appliance Store sold an average(arithmetic mean) of 42
microwave ovens per month. In the first 10 months of this year,the store has
sold an average(arithmetic mean) of only 20 microwave ovens per month. What
was the average number of microwave ovens sold per month during the entire 22
months period ? Answer Choices: (A) 21 (B) 30 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) None of the
above
A: Let’s think step by step. The total number of microwave ovens sold in the
first 10 months of this year is 20*10 = 200. The total number of microwave
ovens sold last year is 42*12 = 504. The total number of months is 10+12 = 22.
So, the average number of microwave ovens sold per month during the entire 22
months period is (504+200)/22 = 704/22 = 32. Therefore, the answer is (D) 32.
Therefore, among A through E, the answer is (D) 32.
Q: An electric pole, 14 metres high, casts a shadow of 10 metres. Find the
height of a tree that casts a shadow of 15 metres under similar conditions.
Answer Choices: (A) 21 (B) 22 (C) 20 (D) 23 (E) 24
A: Let’s think step by step. We can use the proportion of the shadow lengths
to determine the height of the tree. We know that the electric pole’s shadow
is 14/10 = 7/5 the length of the electric pole’s height. So, if the tree’s
shadow is 15 metres, and we assume the same ratio of shadow to height as the
electric pole, we can set up the equation: (Tree’s height) / 15 = (Electric
pole’s height) / (Electric pole’s shadow) Cross-multiplying and solving for
the tree’s height, we get: (Tree’s height) = (15 * Electric pole’s height) /
(Electric pole’s shadow) = (15 * 14) / 10 = 21 So the answer is (A) 21.
Therefore, among A through E, the answer is (A) 21.
Q: At my favorite fruit stand, an orange costs 18 dollars, a pineapple costs
27 dollars, and a grape costs 15 dollars. Using the same logic, can you tell
how much a mango costs? Answer Choices: (A) 22 dollars (B) 15 dollars (C) 20
dollars (D) 18 dollars (E) 10 dollars
A: Let’s think step by step. It is not possible to determine the cost of a
mango based on the given information alone. The prices of the orange,
pineapple, and grape do not provide any information about how the cost of a
mango might be determined. Additional information would be needed to make an
estimate. Therefore, among A through E, the answer is none of the above.
Q: A rectangle has a length of 8 centimeters and a width of 3 centimeters.
Find the perimeter. Answer Choices: (A) 18cm (B) 22cm (C) 20cm (D) 30cm (E)
28cm
A: Let’s think step by step. Perimeter is the sum of all sides of a shape. In
the case of a rectangle, it is the sum of the length and width multiplied by
2. So, the perimeter of a rectangle with a length of 8 centimeters and a width
of 3 centimeters would be (8 + 3) x 2 = 11 x 2 = 22 centimeters. Therefore,
the answer is (B) 22cm. Therefore, among A through E, the answer is (B) 22cm.
Table 21:  Example input and output pairs for SingleEq (arithmetic reasoning).
Q: Wendy ran 19.833333333333332 miles and walked 9.166666666666666 miles. How
much farther did Wendy run than walk?
---
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 10.666666666666666 miles.
Q: The junior ranger asked Christian to help him place 420 seedlings in
packets. If every packet needs to contain 7 seeds, how many packets do they
need?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 60 packets. This can be found by dividing
the total number of seedlings (420) by the number of seeds per packet (7),
which equals 60.
Q: In Shannon’s apartment complex, 0.16666666666666666 of the apartments are
one-bedroom apartments and 0.3333333333333333 are two-bedroom apartments. What
fraction of the apartments are either one- or two-bedroom apartments?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 0.5 (or 50%). To get this answer, you add
the fractions of one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments: 0.16666666666666666 +
0.3333333333333333 = 0.5. This represents half of the apartments in the
complex.
Q: Maria needs 21 cartons of berries to make a berry cobbler. She already has
4 cartons of strawberries and 8 cartons of blueberries. How many more cartons
of berries should Maria buy?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 9 cartons. Maria already has 4 cartons of
strawberries and 8 cartons of blueberries for a total of 4+8 = 12 cartons. To
make the cobbler she needs 21 cartons, so she needs to buy 21-12 = 9 more
cartons of berries.
Q: During a visit to an orchard, Charlie picked 0.16666666666666666 of a bag
of Golden Delicious apples, 0.16666666666666666 of a bag of Macintosh apples,
and 0.3333333333333333 of a bag of Cortland apples. How many bags of fruit did
Charlie pick in total?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 1 bag. You can add the fractions of each
bag of fruit together to get 0.16666666666666666 + 0.16666666666666666 +
0.3333333333333333 = 0.6666666666666666, which simplifies to 1 bag.
Q: For his long distance phone service Milan pays a 2 dollars monthly fee plus
12 cents per minute. Last month , Milan ’s long distance bill was 23.36
dollars. For how many minutes was Milan billed for ?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 194 minutes.
Q: When Joan was visited by the toothfairy, she received 14 each of quarters,
half-dollars, and dimes. How much money did the toothfairy leave Joan?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is $11.50. Explanation: The toothfairy left
Joan 14 quarters, which is 14 x $0.25 = $3.50 The toothfairy left Joan 14
half-dollars, which is 14 x $0.50 = $7.00 The toothfairy left Joan 14 dimes,
which is 14 x $0.10 = $1.40 So in total, the toothfairy left Joan $3.50 +
$7.00 + $1.40 = $11.50.
Q: In one week, an airplane pilot flew 1134 miles on Tuesday and 1475 miles on
Thursday. If the pilot flies the same number of miles 3 weeks in a row, how
many miles does the pilot fly in all?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 9408 miles. This can be calculated by
taking the number of miles flown on Tuesday and Thursday (1134 + 1475 = 2609)
and multiplying it by 3 (2609 x 3 = 9408).
Table 22:  Example input and output pairs for SingleEq with chain-of-thought
(arithmetic reasoning).  Q: Wendy ran 19.833333333333332 miles and walked
9.166666666666666 miles. How much farther did Wendy run than walk?
---
A: Let’s think step by step. Wendy ran 19.833333333333332 miles and walked
9.166666666666666 miles. To find the difference between the two, we can
subtract the number of miles walked from the number of miles ran:
19.833333333333332 - 9.166666666666666 = 10.666666666666664 miles. So Wendy
ran 10.666666666666664 miles farther than she walked. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 10.67 miles.
Q: The junior ranger asked Christian to help him place 420 seedlings in
packets. If every packet needs to contain 7 seeds, how many packets do they
need?
A: Let’s think step by step. They need to place 420 seedlings in packets. To
find out how many packets they need, we need to divide 420 by 7 (the number of
seeds per packet). 420 divided by 7 is 60. So they need 60 packets. Therefore,
the answer (arabic numerals) is 60.
Q: In Shannon’s apartment complex, 0.16666666666666666 of the apartments are
one-bedroom apartments and 0.3333333333333333 are two-bedroom apartments. What
fraction of the apartments are either one- or two-bedroom apartments?
A: Let’s think step by step. 0.16666666666666666 + 0.3333333333333333 = 0.5,
so 0.5 of the apartments are either one- or two-bedroom apartments. Therefore,
the answer (arabic numerals) is 0.5.
Q: Maria needs 21 cartons of berries to make a berry cobbler. She already has
4 cartons of strawberries and 8 cartons of blueberries. How many more cartons
of berries should Maria buy?
A: Let’s think step by step. Maria has 4 + 8 = 12 cartons of berries already.
She needs 21 - 12 = 9 more cartons of berries. Therefore, the answer (arabic
numerals) is 9.
Q: For his long distance phone service Milan pays a 2 dollars monthly fee plus
12 cents per minute. Last month , Milan ’s long distance bill was 23.36
dollars. For how many minutes was Milan billed for ?
A: Let’s think step by step. First, we can subtract the monthly fee from the
total bill to find the cost of the minutes: $23.36 - $2 = $21.36. Next, we can
divide this amount by the cost per minute to find the number of minutes:
$21.36 / $0.12/minute = 178 minutes. Therefore, Milan was billed for 178
minutes. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 178 minutes.
Q: When Joan was visited by the toothfairy, she received 14 each of quarters,
half-dollars, and dimes. How much money did the toothfairy leave Joan?
A: Let’s think step by step. The toothfairy left Joan 14 quarters, which is 14
* $0.25 = $3.50. She also left 14 half-dollars, which is 14 * $0.50 = $7.00.
And 14 dimes, which is 14 * $0.10 = $1.40. Adding all these amounts, the total
amount of money the toothfairy left Joan is $3.50 + $7.00 + $1.40 = $12.00.
Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 12.00.
Q: In one week, an airplane pilot flew 1134 miles on Tuesday and 1475 miles on
Thursday. If the pilot flies the same number of miles 3 weeks in a row, how
many miles does the pilot fly in all?
A: Let’s think step by step. The pilot flew 1134 miles on Tuesday and 1475
miles on Thursday, so in one week they flew a total of 1134 + 1475 = 2609
miles. If the pilot flies the same number of miles 3 weeks in a row, they
would fly a total of 2609 miles x 3 = 7827 miles. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 7827.
Table 23:  Example input and output pairs for SVAMP (arithmetic reasoning).
Q: Because of the decision Sofia asked the students to suggest specific types
of food. If 479 students suggested adding mashed potatoes while 489 suggested
adding bacon to the menu How many more students suggested bacon than those
that suggested mashed potatoes?
---
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 10 more students suggested bacon than those
that suggested mashed potatoes.
Q: Matthew gave equal numbers of crackers to his 18 friends. If he had 36
crackers How many crackers did each person eat?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 2 crackers per person. (Matthew divided 36
crackers equally among 18 friends, so each person received 36/18 = 2
crackers.)
Q: Josh had some marbles in his collection. He lost 21 marbles. If he has 12
marbles now How many marbles did he have in his collection?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 33 marbles. (Josh had 12 marbles + 21
marbles lost = 33 marbles total in his collection)
Q: Because of the decision Sofia asked the students to suggest specific types
of food. 457 students suggested adding mashed potatoes while others suggested
adding bacon to the menu. If 63 more students suggested adding mashed potatoes
than those that suggested bacon How many students suggested bacon?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 194 students suggested adding bacon to the
menu. You can use algebra to solve this problem: Let x be the number of
students who suggested adding bacon. We know that x + 63 = 457 (because 63
more students suggested mashed potatoes than bacon) So x = 457 - 63. x = 394
Q: For Gwen’s birthday she received 2 dollars from her mom. Her dad gave her 4
more dollars. If she spent 3 dollars. How much money did she still have?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 5 dollars. Explanation: Gwen starts with 2
dollars from her mom + 4 dollars from her dad = 6 dollars. Then she spent 3
dollars, so she still has 6 dollars - 3 dollars = 5 dollars left.
Q: Rachel had to complete 8 pages of math homework. If she had to complete 3
more pages of math homework than reading homework How many pages did she have
to complete in all?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is unknown, as the number of pages of reading
homework that Rachel had to complete is not provided.
Q: In a school there are 868 girls and the rest are boys. If there are 281
more girls than boys How many pupils are there in that school?
A: The answer (arabic numerals) is 1247 pupils. To find out, you can use the
information given in the problem to set up an equation: x = number of boys.
868 = number of girls. x + 868 = total number of pupils. You also know that
there are 281 more girls than boys: 868 - x = 281. You can substitute the
second equation into the first equation: x + 868 = x + 868 + 281. Solving for
x gives you the number of boys, which you can then add to the number of girls
to find the total number of pupils. x = 868 - 281. x = 587. 868 + 587 = 1255
Table 24:  Example input and output pairs for SVAMP with chain-of-thought
(arithmetic reasoning).  Q: Because of the decision Sofia asked the students
to suggest specific types of food. If 479 students suggested adding mashed
potatoes while 489 suggested adding bacon to the menu How many more students
suggested bacon than those that suggested mashed potatoes?
---
A: Let’s think step by step. The difference in the number of students who
suggested adding bacon and those who suggested adding mashed potatoes is 489 -
479 = 10 students. So, 10 more students suggested adding bacon than those that
suggested mashed potatoes. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 10.
Q: Matthew gave equal numbers of crackers to his 18 friends. If he had 36
crackers How many crackers did each person eat?
A: Let’s think step by step. Matthew had 36 crackers and gave them to 18
friends, so we can divide 36 by 18 to find out how many crackers each person
received. 36 ÷ 18 = 2. So, each person ate 2 crackers. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 2.
Q: Mary is baking a cake. The recipe calls for 11 cups of sugar 6 cups of
flour and 9 cups of salt. She already put in 12 cups of flour. How many more
cups of sugar than cups of salt does she need to add now?
A: Let’s think step by step. She needs 6 cups of flour - 12 cups of flour = -6
cups of flour. So, she does not need to add any more flour. She needs to add
11 cups of sugar - the amount she already added = 11 cups of sugar. She needs
to add 9 cups of salt - the amount she already added = 9 cups of salt.
Therefore, she needs 11 cups of sugar - 9 cups of salt = 2 more cups of sugar
than salt. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 2.
Q: Josh had some marbles in his collection. He lost 21 marbles. If he has 12
marbles now How many marbles did he have in his collection?
A: Let’s think step by step. Josh originally had 21 + 12 = 33 marbles in his
collection before he lost any. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 33.
Q: For Gwen’s birthday she received 2 dollars from her mom. Her dad gave her 4
more dollars. If she spent 3 dollars. How much money did she still have?
A: Let’s think step by step. Gwen received 2 dollars from her mom + 4 dollars
from her dad = 6 dollars total. Then if she spent 3 dollars, she would have 6
dollars - 3 dollars = 3 dollars remaining. Therefore, the answer (arabic
numerals) is 3 dollars.
Q: Rachel had to complete 8 pages of math homework. If she had to complete 3
more pages of math homework than reading homework How many pages did she have
to complete in all?
A: Let’s think step by step. Rachel had to complete 3 more pages of math
homework than reading homework, so if we let x be the number of pages of
reading homework she had to complete, then the number of pages of math
homework she had to complete is x+3. Therefore, the total number of pages she
had to complete is x+ (x+3) = 8 pages. So, 2x + 3 = 8. Solving for x, we get x
= 2.5. So Rachel had to complete 2.5 pages of reading homework and 5.5 pages
of math homework (3 more than reading homework) in all. Therefore, the answer
(arabic numerals) is 10 pages.
Q: In a school there are 868 girls and the rest are boys. If there are 281
more girls than boys How many pupils are there in that school?
A: Let’s think step by step. The number of boys in the school is 868 girls -
281 girls = 587 boys. The total number of pupils in the school is 868 girls +
587 boys = 1455 pupils. Therefore, the answer (arabic numerals) is 1455.
Table 25:  Example input and output pairs for CSQA (commonsense reasoning).
Q: What are candles good for eliminating? Answer Choices: (A) shelf (B) board
(C) church (D) table (E) dark
---
A: Among A through E, the answer is E) dark. Candles are often used to provide
light in dark places, such as during power outages or in camping situations.
Q: How does going jogging generally affect one’s self esteem? Answer Choices:
(A) feel better (B) feel pride (C) sweating (D) ocean (E) arthritis
A: Among A through E, the answer is A) feel better. Going jogging can have a
positive impact on one’s self esteem as it can release endorphins, also known
as "feel-good" chemicals, which can improve mood and reduce stress. It also
can help to improve the physical appearance and overall physical health, which
can boost self-confidence and self-esteem.
Q: James know that committing murder was wrong, but he thought that he could
get away with it. He was really troubled and fearful because of what? Answer
Choices: (A) happiness (B) problems (C) prosecution (D) distress (E) misery
A: Among A through E, the answer is (C) prosecution.
Q: How can someone die from eating hamburger? Answer Choices: (A) gas (B)
getting full (C) mad cow disease (D) death (E) feel full
A: Among A through E, the answer is (C) mad cow disease. Mad cow disease, also
known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a rare but serious
condition that can occur in cattle. When a person eats meat from a cow
infected with BSE, they can develop a similar disease called variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). vCJD is a fatal neurological disorder.
Q: If there is a pond with trees around it, where it it likely located? Answer
Choices: (A) ground (B) bathroom (C) forest (D) countryside (E) rural area
A: Among A through E, the answer is (D) countryside or (E) rural area. A pond
with trees around it is most likely found in a natural setting such as the
countryside or a rural area, rather than in a man-made structure like a
bathroom or indoors on the ground.
Q: Why would a woman kill a stranger she met in a dark alley? Answer Choices:
(A) being raped (B) get rid of (C) they didn’t know the passcode (D) get
revenge (E) were evil
A: Among A through E, the answer is D) get revenge. The woman may have felt
that the stranger had wronged her in some way and wanted to take revenge.
However, it is important to note that without more information, it is
impossible to say for certain why the woman killed the stranger. Additionally,
it should be noted that violence is not an acceptable form of revenge and
there are other ways to resolve conflicts.
Q: What would you do if you have curiosity but are blind and paralyzed? Answer
Choices: (A) hear news (B) analyse (C) go somewhere (D) examine thing (E) see
favorite show
A: Among A through E, the answer is A and B. I would hear news and analyze it
as I am a language model, and I can process and understand spoken or written
information.
Q: You should watch out for snakes if floating down what African body of
water? Answer Choices: (A) wet grass (B) western texas (C) high grass (D)
amazon river (E) tree
A: Among A through E, the answer is (C) high grass. Snakes are often found in
tall grass and can be a danger if floating down a body of water that has a lot
of high grass along the banks.
Table 26:  Example input and output pairs for CSQA with chain-of-thought
(commonsense reasoning).  Q: What are candles good for eliminating? Answer
Choices: (A) shelf (B) board (C) church (D) table (E) dark
---
A: Let’s think step by step. Candles are commonly used to provide light, so
(E) dark is a good answer choice. Therefore, among A through E, the answer is
(E) dark.
Q: How does going jogging generally affect one’s self esteem? Answer Choices:
(A) feel better (B) feel pride (C) sweating (D) ocean (E) arthritis
A: Let’s think step by step. A: (A) feel better, (B) feel pride. Therefore,
among A through E, the answer is A: (A) feel better, (B) feel pride.
Q: James know that committing murder was wrong, but he thought that he could
get away with it. He was really troubled and fearful because of what? Answer
Choices: (A) happiness (B) problems (C) prosecution (D) distress (E) misery
A: Let’s think step by step. James committed murder and was aware that it was
wrong. He thought he could get away with it, but was troubled and fearful.
Based on this information, the answer would be (C) prosecution. Therefore,
among A through E, the answer is (C) prosecution.
Q: How can someone die from eating hamburger? Answer Choices: (A) gas (B)
getting full (C) mad cow disease (D) death (E) feel full
A: Let’s think step by step. (C) mad cow disease. Therefore, among A through
E, the answer is (C) mad cow disease. Mad cow disease, also known as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a rare but serious condition that can be
transmitted to humans who eat contaminated beef. In severe cases, it can cause
a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which can be fatal.
Q: If there is a pond with trees around it, where it it likely located? Answer
Choices: (A) ground (B) bathroom (C) forest (D) countryside (E) rural area
A: Let’s think step by step. (D) countryside or (E) rural area. Therefore,
among A through E, the answer is (D) countryside or (E) rural area.
Q: What would you do if you have curiosity but are blind and paralyzed? Answer
Choices: (A) hear news (B) analyse (C) go somewhere (D) examine thing (E) see
favorite show
A: Let’s think step by step. Option A: Hear news - this is a good choice as it
would allow you to stay informed and engaged with current events. Option B:
Analyze - This could also be a good choice as it would allow you to engage
your mind and think critically. Option C: Go somewhere - This may not be a
feasible option as you are paralyzed. Option D: Examine things - This may not
be a feasible option as you are blind. Option E: See favorite show - This may
not be a feasible option as you are blind. Considering the limitations you
have, options A and B may be the most feasible for you to satisfy your
curiosity. Therefore, among A through E, the answer is A and B: Hear news and
Analyze.
Q: You should watch out for snakes if floating down what African body of
water? Answer Choices: (A) wet grass (B) western texas (C) high grass (D)
amazon river (E) tree
A: Let’s think step by step. The answer is (D) the Nile River. Therefore,
among A through E, the answer is (E) tree, as this is the only one that is not
a body of water.
Table 27:  Example input and output pairs for StrategyQA (commonsense
reasoning).  Q: Did mercenaries fight for England in the Glorious Revolution?
---
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No. The Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689 in
England was primarily fought by English and Scottish troops, and did not
involve the use of mercenaries. It was a relatively bloodless conflict that
saw the overthrow of King James II and the replacement of the Catholic
monarchy with the Protestant monarchy of William and Mary. The revolution was
primarily driven by political and religious motives and was not fought for
mercenary gain.
Q: Does a sea otter eat spiders?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No. Sea otters are carnivorous marine mammals and
primarily eat fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Spiders are not a part of their
diet.
Q: Did Modern Family win a Slammy award?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No, Modern Family did not win a Slammy award. The
Slammy Awards are an annual awards show presented by the professional
wrestling promotion WWE, and Modern Family is a television sitcom.
Q: Did Ice make people rich?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes, the Ice trade has made people rich. The Ice
trade refers to the commercial harvesting, transport and sale of natural ice,
and it was a major industry in the 19th century. Ice was harvested from frozen
rivers and lakes during the winter, and then stored in ice houses for use
during the summer. The ice was then transported by ship or train to cities and
towns, where it was sold to individuals and businesses for use in
refrigeration. The ice trade was particularly profitable for those who
controlled the ice harvesting and transportation operations.
Q: Are the headquarters of All Nippon Airways near a beach?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No. The headquarters of All Nippon Airways (ANA)
is located in Tokyo, Japan, which is not near a beach.
Q: Would a baby gray whale fit in a tractor-trailer?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No, a baby gray whale would not fit in a tractor-
trailer as they typically measure around 15-20 feet in length and weigh around
2,000-3,000 pounds at birth. Tractor-trailers are not designed to hold such
large animals.
Q: Is Tange Sazen hypothetically an ideal choice for a secretary job?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is unknown as Tange Sazen is a fictional character
and it is not clear what qualifications or abilities they possess that would
make them a suitable candidate for a secretary job.
Q: Would JPEG be a good format for saving an image of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian
Man?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes, JPEG is a good format for saving an image of
Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. It is a lossy compression format that is well-suited
for photographs and other images with many colors and subtle gradations. It
can reduce the file size of an image without significantly degrading its
quality. Additionally, JPEG is a widely supported format that can be opened by
most image editing software and web browsers.
Q: Does Pantheon in Paris have a unique name?
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes. The Pantheon in Paris is officially known as
the "Pantheon of Paris" or the "Pantheon in the Latin Quarter." It is a famous
landmark and tourist destination in the city, known for its architectural
significance and historical importance.
Table 28:  Example input and output pairs for StrategyQA with chain-of-thought
(commonsense reasoning).  Q: Did mercenaries fight for England in the Glorious
Revolution?
---
A: Let’s think step by step. Yes, mercenaries fought for England in the
Glorious Revolution of 1688. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is Yes.
Q: Does a sea otter eat spiders?
A: Let’s think step by step. No, sea otters primarily feed on shellfish and
other marine animals, not spiders. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is No
Q: Did Modern Family win a Slammy award?
A: Let’s think step by step. Modern Family is a popular TV show that aired
from 2009 to 2020. The Slammy Awards are annual awards given by the
professional wrestling promotion WWE. It is unlikely that Modern Family won a
Slammy Award. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is No.
Q: Did Ice make people rich?
A: Let’s think step by step. ICE (Intercontinental Exchange) is a financial
and commodity market operator, it does not directly make people rich. The
financial market’s performance and individual investments determine an
individual’s wealth. However, ICE operates various marketplaces, including
stock exchanges, which provide opportunities for investors to potentially grow
their wealth. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is No.
Q: Are the headquarters of All Nippon Airways near a beach?
A: Let’s think step by step. No, the headquarters of All Nippon Airways (ANA)
is located in Shiodome City Center, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan, which is not near
a beach. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is No.
Q: Would a baby gray whale fit in a tractor-trailer?
A: Let’s think step by step. Gray whales reach up to 50 feet in length and can
weigh up to 40 tons. A standard tractor-trailer is about 53 feet long and
typically has a capacity of around 40-45 feet in length, so no, a baby gray
whale would not fit in a tractor-trailer. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is
No.
Q: Is Tange Sazen hypothetically an ideal choice for a secretary job?
A: Let’s think step by step. Tange Sazen is a fictional character and
therefore, it is not possible to determine if they would be an ideal choice
for a secretary job. Additionally, as a language model AI, I do not have any
personal opinions on the matter. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is Not
applicable.
Q: Is a cory catfish likely to eat another living fish?
A: Let’s think step by step. Yes, cory catfish may eat other living fish if
they are small enough and can fit in their mouth. It is important to consider
the size of the tank, the size of the fish, and their feeding habits when
keeping them together. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is Yes.
Q: Does Pantheon in Paris have a unique name?
A: Let’s think step by step. The Pantheon in Paris is officially known as the
"Pantheon of Paris" or simply "The Pantheon." It is not known by a unique
name. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is No.
Table 29:  Example input and output pairs for COPA (commonsense reasoning).
premise: The pair of students came under scrutiny by the teacher.
---
What is the cause?
choice1: The students both received excellent grades.
choice2: Their responses on the assignment were identical.
answer: Choice 2: Their responses on the assignment were identical.
premise: The boy threw a temper tantrum.
What is the cause?
choice1: His brother took his toys from him.
choice2: He shared his toys with his brother.
answer: choice1: His brother took his toys from him.
premise: The woman read the newspaper.
What is the effect?
choice1: She discovered the outcome of the election.
choice2: She casted a vote in the election.
answer: choice1: She discovered the outcome of the election.
premise: The woman was in a bad mood.
What is the effect?
choice1: She engaged in small talk with her friend.
choice2: She told her friend to leave her alone.
answer: choice2: She told her friend to leave her alone.
premise: The woman banished the children from her property.
What is the cause?
choice1: The children hit a ball into her yard.
choice2: The children trampled through her garden.
answer: It is not specified in the premise what the cause of the woman
banishing the children from her property is. The choices "The children hit a
ball into her yard" and "The children trampled through her garden" are
possible causes, but without more information it is not possible to determine
which, if either, is correct.
premise: The woman retired.
What is the effect?
choice1: She received her pension.
choice2: She paid off her mortgage.
answer: The effect of the woman retiring is not specified in the premise, so
it is not possible to determine if either choice is correct. More information
is needed to determine the specific effects of her retirement.
premise:The computer was expensive to fix.
What is the effect?
choice1: I got it repaired.
choice2: I bought a new one.
answer: The effect of the computer being expensive to fix is either choice1:
getting it repaired or choice2: buying a new one.
Table 30:  Example input and output pairs for COPA with chain-of-thought
(commonsense reasoning).  premise: The boy threw a temper tantrum.
---
What is the cause?
choice1: His brother took his toys from him.
choice2: He shared his toys with his brother.
Let’s think step by step. The cause of the boy’s temper tantrum is not
specified in the premise, so it is unclear whether the cause is choice 1 or
choice 2. More information is needed to determine the cause. Therefore,
between choice1 and choice2, the answer is unclear.
premise: The woman read the newspaper.
What is the effect?
choice1: She discovered the outcome of the election.
choice2: She casted a vote in the election.
Let’s think step by step. The effect of the woman reading the newspaper is
choice1: She discovered the outcome of the election. Reading the newspaper
would provide her with information, such as the results of an election. Choice
2: She casted a vote in the election is not a direct effect of reading the
newspaper as it is not mentioned in the premise. Therefore, between choice1
and choice2, the answer is choice1: She discovered the outcome of the
election.
premise: The woman banished the children from her property.
What is the cause?
choice1: The children hit a ball into her yard.
choice2: The children trampled through her garden.
Let’s think step by step. The cause of the woman banishing the children from
her property is not specified in the premise. The choices provided, "The
children hit a ball into her yard" and "The children trampled through her
garden," are potential causes but they are not confirmed. Therefore, between
choice1 and choice2, the answer is unknown.
premise: The woman retired.
What is the effect?
choice1: She received her pension.
choice2: She paid off her mortgage.
Let’s think step by step. The effect of the woman retiring is that she is no
longer actively working and may be eligible for retirement benefits such as a
pension or social security. Choice 1, "She received her pension," is a
potential outcome of her retirement. Choice 2, "She paid off her mortgage," is
not directly related to her retirement and would likely have been affected by
other factors such as income and savings. Therefore, between choice1 and
choice2, the answer is choice1: She received her pension.
premise:The computer was expensive to fix.
What is the effect?
choice1: I got it repaired.
choice2: I bought a new one.
Let’s think step by step. Choice 1: The effect of "I got it repaired" would
likely be that the computer is now functional again, but the cost of the
repair may have been significant. Choice 2: The effect of "I bought a new one"
would likely be that you now have a functioning computer, but the cost of the
new one plus the cost of repairing the old one may have been significant.
Additionally, you would no longer have the old computer. Therefore, between
choice1 and choice2, the answer is that both options result in a functioning
computer, but both options may have significant costs and choice 2 would mean
that you no longer have the old computer.
Table 31:  Example input and output pairs for Last Letter Concatenation
(symbolic reasoning).  Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Skyler
Oliver Cristy Sierra" and concatenate them.
---
A: The answer is "r r y a"
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Felipe Heidi Nino Bradley" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is "e i o y"
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Nico Lorenzo Johanna Teresita" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is "o o a a"
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Jason Betty Elisa Jay" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is "n y a y"
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Bob Aman Richie Sana" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is bncieana
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Marian Joanne Darrin Rohit" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is "nntrh"
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Justin Neal Jt Lucia" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is "ntljtcia"
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Carla Dolores Cooper Damion" and
concatenate them.
A: The answer is "lrcprdmn"
Table 32:  Example input and output pairs for Last Letter Concatenation with
chain-of-thought (symbolic reasoning).  Q: Take the last letters of each words
in "Skyler Oliver Cristy Sierra" and concatenate them.
---
A: Let’s think step by step. A: yroiverstyreri. Therefore, the answer is
yroiverstyreri.
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Felipe Heidi Nino Bradley" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. A: "Felipe Heidi Nino Bradley" ->
"eipeideinradley" Therefore, the answer is "eipeideinradley".
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Nico Lorenzo Johanna Teresita" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. "Nico Lorenzo Johanna Teresita" -> "oc ozenro
hannajo atesiti" -> "colojhatesit". Therefore, the answer is "colojhatesit".
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Jason Betty Elisa Jay" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. The last letters of each word are: "n", "y", "a",
"y". Concatenating them results in "nyay". Therefore, the answer is "nyay".
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Bob Aman Richie Sana" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. "Bob Aman Richie Sana" -> "bob" "aman" "richie"
"sana" -> "b" "n" "e" "a" -> "bnea" Therefore, the answer is "bnea".
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Marian Joanne Darrin Rohit" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. A: ntnhtjrdro. Therefore, the answer is
ntnhtjrdro.
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Justin Neal Jt Lucia" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. "Justin Neal Jt Lucia" -> "niatn leaJ ttJ acilu"
-> "naltjtacilu". Therefore, the answer is "naltjtacilu".
Q: Take the last letters of each words in "Carla Dolores Cooper Damion" and
concatenate them.
A: Let’s think step by step. Last letters of each word: "alr ores ooper
amion". Concatenated result: "alroresooperamion". Therefore, the answer is
"alroresooperamion".
Table 33:  Example input and output pairs for Coin Flip (symbolic reasoning).
Q: A coin is heads up. Wilmer flips the coin. Valerie does not flip the coin.
Melissa flips the coin. Eloisa flips the coin. Is the coin still heads up?
Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
---
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No, if the coin is flipped four times, the
probability that it will be heads up is very low. Each flip has a 50% chance
of resulting in the coin landing heads up or tails up. The coin is likely to
end up in a tails up position after four flips.
Q: A coin is heads up. Katia does not flip the coin. Mina does not flip the
coin. Cam does not flip the coin. Ronda does not flip the coin. Is the coin
still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes. Since none of the individuals (Katia, Mina,
Cam, and Ronda) flipped the coin, the coin would still be heads up.
Q: A coin is heads up. Forrest does not flip the coin. Juanito does not flip
the coin. Allan does not flip the coin. Candice does not flip the coin. Is the
coin still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes, the coin is still heads up.
Q: A coin is heads up. Tomas does not flip the coin. Nic flips the coin. Zoila
flips the coin. Calvin does not flip the coin. Is the coin still heads up?
Note that "flip" here means "reverse"
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes, the coin is still heads up. Since Tomas and
Calvin did not flip the coin, it remains in its original state. Nic and Zoila
flipping the coin would only change the current state of the coin.
Q: A coin is heads up. Jeff does not flip the coin. Jen flips the coin.
Giselle flips the coin. Noel does not flip the coin. Is the coin still heads
up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: The answer (Yes or No) is unknown without additional information about the
outcome of Jen and Giselle flipping the coin. If both Jen and Giselle flipped
the coin and it landed heads up each time, then it would still be heads up. If
either of them flipped the coin and it landed tails up, then the coin would no
longer be heads up.
Q: A coin is heads up. Amy flips the coin. Ella does not flip the coin.
Amilcar does not flip the coin. Roman does not flip the coin. Is the coin
still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: The answer (Yes or No) is Yes, the coin is still heads up. Since Amy, Ella,
Amilcar, and Roman did not flip the coin, the coin’s initial state of being
heads up remains unchanged.
Q: A coin is heads up. Lara does not flip the coin. Greg does not flip the
coin. Ethan flips the coin. Terrence flips the coin. Is the coin still heads
up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: The answer (Yes or No) is unknown, as we do not know the outcome of Ethan
and Terrence flipping the coin. If Ethan and Terrence both flipped the coin
and it landed heads up each time, then the coin would still be heads up. If
either of them flipped the coin and it landed tails up, then the coin would no
longer be heads up.
Q: A coin is heads up. Ronnie flips the coin. Kiki flips the coin. Alan flips
the coin. Remy flips the coin. Is the coin still heads up? Note that "flip"
here means "reverse".
A: The answer (Yes or No) is No. Each flip of the coin has a 50% chance of
resulting in the coin being heads up or tails up. Since the coin was initially
heads up and each flip has a 50% chance of reversing the current state of the
coin, it is likely that the coin will end up as tails up after multiple flips.
Table 34:  Example input and output pairs for Coin Flip with chain-of-thought
(symbolic reasoning).  Q: A coin is heads up. Wilmer flips the coin. Valerie
does not flip the coin. Melissa flips the coin. Eloisa flips the coin. Is the
coin still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
---
A: Let’s think step by step. At the start, the coin is heads up. When Wilmer
flips the coin, it will be tails up. When Valerie does not flip the coin, it
remains tails up. When Melissa flips the coin, it will be heads up again.
Finally, when Eloisa flips the coin, it will be tails up again. Therefore,
after all four flips, the coin is tails up. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No)
is No.
Q: A coin is heads up. Katia does not flip the coin. Mina does not flip the
coin. Cam does not flip the coin. Ronda does not flip the coin. Is the coin
still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: Let’s think step by step. Yes, the coin is still heads up. None of the
individuals mentioned (Katia, Mina, Cam, Ronda) flipped the coin, so its
original state (heads up) remains unchanged. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No)
is Yes.
Q: A coin is heads up. Forrest does not flip the coin. Juanito does not flip
the coin. Allan does not flip the coin. Candice does not flip the coin. Is the
coin still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: Let’s think step by step. Yes, the coin is still heads up as long as none
of the individuals flip the coin, the coin’s current state will remain the
same. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is Yes.
Q: A coin is heads up. Tomas does not flip the coin. Nic flips the coin. Zoila
flips the coin. Calvin does not flip the coin. Is the coin still heads up?
Note that "flip" here means "reverse"
A: Let’s think step by step. First, the coin is heads up before any flipping
occurs. When Nic flips the coin, the coin will now be tails up. Then, when
Zoila flips the coin, the coin will be heads up again. Finally, since Calvin
does not flip the coin, the coin remains heads up. So, the final answer is
yes, the coin is still heads up. Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is Yes.
Q: A coin is heads up. Jeff does not flip the coin. Jen flips the coin.
Giselle flips the coin. Noel does not flip the coin. Is the coin still heads
up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: Let’s think step by step. If Jeff does not flip the coin, it remains heads
up. Then, when Jen flips the coin, it would become tails up. Finally, when
Giselle flips the coin, it would become heads up again. So, the final state of
the coin after all these actions is heads up. Therefore, the answer (Yes or
No) is Yes.
Q: A coin is heads up. Amy flips the coin. Ella does not flip the coin.
Amilcar does not flip the coin. Roman does not flip the coin. Is the coin
still heads up? Note that "flip" here means "reverse".
A: Let’s think step by step. Yes, the coin is still heads up, as none of the
people mentioned flipped the coin, meaning it remained in its original state.
Therefore, the answer (Yes or No) is Yes.