Enhancing LLM Problem Solving with REAP: Reflection, Explicit Problem Deconstruction, and Advanced Prompting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, yet improving their problem-solving capabilities, particularly for complex, reasoning-intensive tasks, remains a persistent challenge. This paper introduces the REAP (Reflection, Explicit Problem Deconstruction, and Advanced Prompting) method, an innovative approach within the dynamic context generation framework. REAP guides LLMs through reflection on the query, deconstructing it into manageable components, and generating relevant context to enhance the solution process. We evaluated REAP using a dataset designed to expose LLM limitations, comparing zero-shot prompting with REAP-enhanced prompts across six state-of-the-art models: OpenAI's o1-preview, o1-mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Google's Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. The results demonstrate notable performance gains, with o1-mini improving by 40.97%, GPT-4o by 66.26%, and GPT-4o-mini by 112.93%. Despite the already strong baseline performance of OpenAI's o1-preview, modest gains were observed. Beyond performance improvements, REAP offers a cost-effective solution; for example, GPT-4o-mini, which is approximately 100 times cheaper than o1-preview, delivered competitive results. REAP also improves the clarity of model outputs, making it easier for humans to understand the reasoning behind the results and simplifying the process of identifying and addressing any issues. These findings demonstrate REAP's potential to greatly improve the capabilities of LLMs, providing both better performance and increased cost-efficiency across a wide range of applications.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2024.
Builds on
12 of 13 references.
References · 12
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2024Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrongcited by 29
- 2021Thinking Aloud: Dynamic Context Generation Improves Zero-Shot Reasoning Performance of GPT-2cited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2024A Systematic Assessment of OpenAI o1-Preview for Higher Order Thinking in Educationcited by 16
- 2026TowerMind: A Tower Defence Game Learning Environment and Benchmark for LLM as Agentscited by 4
- 2024Fast Analysis of the OpenAI O1-Preview Model in Solving Random K-SAT Problem: Does the LLM Solve the Problem Itself or Call an External SAT Solver?cited by 3
- 2024Internalized Self-Correction for Large Language Modelscited by 2
- 2026TowerMind: A Tower Defence Game Learning Environment and Benchmark for LLM as Agents9 Jan 2026
- 2024Internalized Self-Correction for Large Language Models21 Dec 2024
- 2024A Systematic Assessment of OpenAI o1-Preview for Higher Order Thinking in Education11 Oct 2024
- 2024Fast Analysis of the OpenAI O1-Preview Model in Solving Random K-SAT Problem: Does the LLM Solve the Problem Itself or Call an External SAT Solver?17 Sep 2024