Demystifying Chains, Trees, and Graphs of Thoughts

2401.14295

YC

8

Reddit

0

Published 4/8/2024 by Maciej Besta, Florim Memedi, Zhenyu Zhang, Robert Gerstenberger, Guangyuan Piao, Nils Blach, Piotr Nyczyk, Marcin Copik, Grzegorz Kwa'sniewski, Jurgen Muller and 6 others
Demystifying Chains, Trees, and Graphs of Thoughts

Abstract

The field of natural language processing (NLP) has witnessed significant progress in recent years, with a notable focus on improving large language models' (LLM) performance through innovative prompting techniques. Among these, prompt engineering coupled with structures has emerged as a promising paradigm, with designs such as Chain-of-Thought, Tree of Thoughts, or Graph of Thoughts, in which the overall LLM reasoning is guided by a structure such as a graph. As illustrated with numerous examples, this paradigm significantly enhances the LLM's capability to solve numerous tasks, ranging from logical or mathematical reasoning to planning or creative writing. To facilitate the understanding of this growing field and pave the way for future developments, we devise a general blueprint for effective and efficient LLM reasoning schemes. For this, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the prompt execution pipeline, clarifying and clearly defining different concepts. We then build the first taxonomy of structure-enhanced LLM reasoning schemes. We focus on identifying fundamental classes of harnessed structures, and we analyze the representations of these structures, algorithms executed with these structures, and many others. We refer to these structures as reasoning topologies, because their representation becomes to a degree spatial, as they are contained within the LLM context. Our study compares existing prompting schemes using the proposed taxonomy, discussing how certain design choices lead to different patterns in performance and cost. We also outline theoretical underpinnings, relationships between prompting and other parts of the LLM ecosystem such as knowledge bases, and the associated research challenges. Our work will help to advance future prompt engineering techniques.

Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:

Overview

  • Explores the evolution of different reasoning topologies, including chains, trees, and graphs, in the context of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs)
  • Discusses the benefits and challenges of each topology, and how they can be leveraged for prompt engineering and complex task reasoning
  • Highlights recent advancements in compositional chain-of-thought prompting, graph-based reasoning, and the potential of small language models to assist large language models in complex reasoning tasks

Plain English Explanation

The paper explores different ways of structuring the thought process of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) when solving complex problems. It looks at three main topologies: chains, trees, and graphs.

A chain is a linear sequence of connected thoughts, like a step-by-step process. Trees have a main idea with multiple branches of related sub-ideas. And graphs are a more flexible network of interconnected concepts.

Each topology has its own advantages and challenges. Chains are good for clear, logical reasoning, but can be rigid. Trees allow for more exploratory thinking, but can get complex. Graphs are the most flexible, but can be harder to interpret.

The paper discusses recent advancements in using these different topologies for prompt engineering and complex task reasoning. For example, compositional chain-of-thought prompting combines chains in clever ways, and graph-based reasoning explores using graphs to capture intricate relationships.

It also highlights research showing how small language models can assist large language models in tackling complex reasoning tasks, by providing complementary capabilities.

The overall goal is to better understand how to structure the reasoning process of powerful AI models to solve increasingly complex problems in intuitive and explainable ways.

Technical Explanation

The paper explores the evolution of different reasoning topologies, including chains, trees, and graphs, in the context of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs).

Chain-of-Thought Prompting: This approach structures the reasoning process as a linear sequence of interconnected steps, similar to a step-by-step algorithm. It can promote logical, structured reasoning, but can also be rigid and lack flexibility.

Tree of Thoughts: This topology organizes the reasoning as a hierarchical tree structure, with a central idea branching out into related sub-ideas. This allows for more exploratory thinking, but can become increasingly complex as the tree grows.

Graph of Thoughts: In this approach, the reasoning is represented as a flexible network of interconnected concepts, allowing for more nuanced and contextual relationships. However, interpreting and navigating these graphs can be more challenging.

The paper discusses recent advancements in leveraging these different topologies for prompt engineering and complex task reasoning. For example, compositional chain-of-thought prompting combines multiple chains in creative ways to solve more complex problems.

Furthermore, the paper highlights research on graph-based reasoning, which explores using graphs to capture the intricate relationships involved in solving complex tasks.

Additionally, the paper discusses the potential of small language models to assist large language models in complex reasoning tasks, by leveraging their complementary capabilities.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the different reasoning topologies and their potential applications in large language models and vision-language models. However, it also acknowledges the inherent trade-offs and challenges associated with each topology.

While chains can promote logical and structured reasoning, they may struggle to capture the nuanced relationships and contextual dependencies involved in complex problem-solving. Trees offer more flexibility, but the hierarchical structure can become unwieldy as the depth and breadth of the reasoning process increases.

The graph-based approach is the most flexible, but the interpretation and navigation of these interconnected networks pose significant challenges. The paper does not delve deeply into the computational and memory overhead associated with these more complex topologies, which could be an important consideration for real-world applications.

Additionally, the paper does not address the potential biases and limitations that may arise from the data used to train these large language models and vision-language models. The reasoning topologies discussed are ultimately constrained by the biases and gaps present in the training data, which could lead to unintended consequences or suboptimal solutions in certain domains.

Further research is needed to explore the trade-offs between these reasoning topologies, their scalability, and their ability to generalize to a wider range of problem-solving scenarios. Incorporating techniques from human-in-the-loop systems and enhancing reasoning capabilities may also be a fruitful avenue for future investigations.

Conclusion

This paper provides a valuable exploration of the different reasoning topologies, including chains, trees, and graphs, and their potential applications in large language models and vision-language models. By understanding the strengths, limitations, and trade-offs of each topology, researchers and practitioners can better design prompt engineering strategies and complex task reasoning systems.

The advancements discussed, such as compositional chain-of-thought prompting, graph-based reasoning, and the synergistic use of small and large language models, highlight the ongoing efforts to push the boundaries of AI reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. As these technologies continue to evolve, the insights from this paper can help guide the development of more intuitive, explainable, and versatile AI systems capable of tackling increasingly complex challenges.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting

General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting

Robert Vacareanu, Anurag Pratik, Evangelia Spiliopoulou, Zheng Qi, Giovanni Paolini, Neha Anna John, Jie Ma, Yassine Benajiba, Miguel Ballesteros

YC

0

Reddit

0

Many of the recent capabilities demonstrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) arise primarily from their ability to exploit contextual information. In this paper, we explore ways to improve reasoning capabilities of LLMs through (1) exploration of different chains of thought and (2) validation of the individual steps of the reasoning process. We propose three general principles that a model should adhere to while reasoning: (i) Relevance, (ii) Mathematical Accuracy, and (iii) Logical Consistency. We apply these constraints to the reasoning steps generated by the LLM to improve the accuracy of the final generation. The constraints are applied in the form of verifiers: the model itself is asked to verify if the generated steps satisfy each constraint. To further steer the generations towards high-quality solutions, we use the perplexity of the reasoning steps as an additional verifier. We evaluate our method on 4 distinct types of reasoning tasks, spanning a total of 9 different datasets. Experiments show that our method is always better than vanilla generation, and, in 6 out of the 9 datasets, it is better than best-of N sampling which samples N reasoning chains and picks the lowest perplexity generation.

Read more

5/2/2024

💬

Graph Chain-of-Thought: Augmenting Large Language Models by Reasoning on Graphs

Bowen Jin, Chulin Xie, Jiawei Zhang, Kashob Kumar Roy, Yu Zhang, Suhang Wang, Yu Meng, Jiawei Han

YC

0

Reddit

0

Large language models (LLMs), while exhibiting exceptional performance, suffer from hallucinations, especially on knowledge-intensive tasks. Existing works propose to augment LLMs with individual text units retrieved from external knowledge corpora to alleviate the issue. However, in many domains, texts are interconnected (e.g., academic papers in a bibliographic graph are linked by citations and co-authorships) which form a (text-attributed) graph. The knowledge in such graphs is encoded not only in single texts/nodes but also in their associated connections. To facilitate the research of augmenting LLMs with graphs, we manually construct a Graph Reasoning Benchmark dataset called GRBench, containing 1,740 questions that can be answered with the knowledge from 10 domain graphs. Then, we propose a simple and effective framework called Graph Chain-of-thought (Graph-CoT) to augment LLMs with graphs by encouraging LLMs to reason on the graph iteratively. Each Graph-CoT iteration consists of three sub-steps: LLM reasoning, LLM-graph interaction, and graph execution. We conduct systematic experiments with three LLM backbones on GRBench, where Graph-CoT outperforms the baselines consistently. The code is available at https://github.com/PeterGriffinJin/Graph-CoT.

Read more

4/11/2024

Can LLMs perform structured graph reasoning?

Can LLMs perform structured graph reasoning?

Palaash Agrawal, Shavak Vasania, Cheston Tan

YC

0

Reddit

0

Pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated various reasoning capabilities through language-based prompts alone, particularly in unstructured task settings (tasks purely based on language semantics). However, LLMs often struggle with structured tasks, because of the inherent incompatibility of input representation. Reducing structured tasks to uni-dimensional language semantics often renders the problem trivial. Keeping the trade-off between LLM compatibility and structure complexity in mind, we design various graph reasoning tasks as a proxy to semi-structured tasks in this paper, in order to test the ability to navigate through representations beyond plain text in various LLMs. Particularly, we design 10 distinct problems of graph traversal, each representing increasing levels of complexity, and benchmark 5 different instruct-finetuned LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Claude-2, Llama-2 and Palm-2) on the aforementioned tasks. Further, we analyse the performance of models across various settings such as varying sizes of graphs as well as different forms of k-shot prompting. We highlight various limitations, biases and properties of LLMs through this benchmarking process, such as an inverse relation to the average degrees of freedom of traversal per node in graphs, the overall negative impact of k-shot prompting on graph reasoning tasks, and a positive response bias which prevents LLMs from identifying the absence of a valid solution. Finally, we introduce a new prompting technique specially designed for graph traversal tasks (PathCompare), which demonstrates a notable increase in the performance of LLMs in comparison to standard prompting techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT).

Read more

4/19/2024

🌿

Chain of Thoughtlessness: An Analysis of CoT in Planning

Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, Subbarao Kambhampati

YC

0

Reddit

0

Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated by modifying prompts to include examples with chains of thought--demonstrations of solution procedures--with the intuition that it is possible to in-context teach an LLM an algorithm for solving the problem. This paper presents a case study of chain of thought on problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain, and examine the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs across two axes: generality of examples given in prompt, and complexity of problems queried with each prompt. While our problems are very simple, we only find meaningful performance improvements from chain of thought prompts when those prompts are exceedingly specific to their problem class, and that those improvements quickly deteriorate as the size n of the query-specified stack grows past the size of stacks shown in the examples. Our results hint that, contrary to previous claims in the literature, CoT's performance improvements do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures via demonstrations and depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially because of the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.

Read more

5/9/2024