Papers › Learning From Mistakes Makes LLM Better Reasoner

Learning From Mistakes Makes LLM Better Reasoner

31 Oct 2023arXiv:2310.20689archive 2025-07-28

Shengnan An, Zexiong Ma, Zeqi Lin, Nanning Zheng, Jian-Guang Lou, Weizhu Chen

Large language models (LLMs) recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities on solving math problems. To further improve their reasoning capabilities, this work explores whether LLMs can LEarn from MistAkes (LEMA), akin to the human learning process. Consider a human student who failed to solve a math problem, he will learn from what mistake he has made and how to correct it. Mimicking this error-driven learning process, LEMA incorporates mistake-correction data pairs during fine-tuning LLMs. Specifically, we first collect inaccurate reasoning paths from various LLMs, and then employ GPT-4 as a ''corrector'' to identify the mistake step, explain the reason for the mistake, correct the mistake and generate the final answer. In addition, we apply a correction-centric evolution strategy that effectively expands the question set for generating correction data. Experiments across various LLMs and reasoning tasks show that LEMA effectively improves CoT-alone fine-tuning. Our further ablations shed light on the non-homogeneous effectiveness between CoT data and correction data. These results suggest a significant potential for LLMs to improve through learning from their mistakes. Our code, models and prompts are publicly available at https://github.com/microsoft/LEMA.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

4 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from microsoft/lema. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections