Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong

2405.19616

YC

5

Reddit

0

Published 6/4/2024 by Sean Williams, James Huckle
Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong

Abstract

We introduce a comprehensive Linguistic Benchmark designed to evaluate the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) in domains such as logical reasoning, spatial intelligence, and linguistic understanding, among others. Through a series of straightforward questions, it uncovers the significant limitations of well-regarded models to perform tasks that humans manage with ease. It also highlights the potential of prompt engineering to mitigate some errors and underscores the necessity for better training methodologies. Our findings stress the importance of grounding LLMs with human reasoning and common sense, emphasising the need for human-in-the-loop for enterprise applications. We hope this work paves the way for future research to enhance the usefulness and reliability of new models.

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

Overview

  • This paper examines "Easy Problems That Large Language Models (LLMs) Get Wrong", exploring situations where advanced AI models struggle with seemingly simple tasks.
  • The research provides insights into the limitations and biases of current LLMs, which are often touted as highly capable at a wide range of language-related tasks.
  • By studying examples of "easy" problems that LLMs fail to solve, the authors aim to uncover areas for improvement and guide future AI development.

Plain English Explanation

The paper investigates cases where large language models (LLMs), which are advanced AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data, struggle with seemingly simple problems. Despite their impressive capabilities in many areas, the researchers found that LLMs can sometimes get basic tasks wrong in surprising ways.

By analyzing these "easy problems that LLMs get wrong," the authors hope to shed light on the limitations and biases of current language models. This information can then be used to guide future AI development and address the shortcomings of these powerful systems.

The paper "Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating Reasoning Behavior in Large Language Models" is relevant to this research, as it explores ways to more comprehensively assess the reasoning abilities of LLMs beyond just measuring their accuracy on specific tasks.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents a series of case studies where large language models (LLMs) fail to solve seemingly straightforward problems. The researchers carefully designed a set of test cases that should be easy for humans to understand and solve, but found that state-of-the-art LLMs often struggle with these tasks.

For example, the authors describe a problem where an LLM is asked to determine whether a given string of text is a valid email address. While this is a trivial task for most people, the LLM often made incorrect judgments, failing to properly identify well-formed email addresses.

The paper also explores LLMs' difficulties with logical reasoning, as highlighted in the work "Evaluating Deductive Competence of Large Language Models". The researchers present examples where LLMs struggle to follow simple logical arguments or make straightforward deductions.

The research "Puzzle Solving Using Reasoning in Large Language Models" is also relevant, as it explores the limitations of LLMs in solving logical puzzles, another area where humans excel but LLMs often fail.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important questions about the true capabilities of large language models and the need to look beyond simple accuracy metrics when evaluating their performance. The authors rightly point out that LLMs can struggle with tasks that are trivial for humans, suggesting that these models may lack a deeper understanding of language and reasoning.

One potential limitation of the research is that the authors focus on a relatively small set of test cases. It would be valuable to see a more comprehensive analysis of a wider range of "easy" problems to better understand the scope and patterns of LLM failures.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying reasons why LLMs struggle with these tasks. Further research, such as the work "Can Large Language Models Create New Knowledge?", could provide more insights into the fundamental limitations and biases of these models.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the need to critically examine the capabilities of large language models and to push beyond simplistic measures of performance. Continued research in this area can help drive the development of more robust and capable AI systems.

Conclusion

This paper sheds light on the surprising limitations of large language models, showing that even simple tasks can pose significant challenges for these advanced AI systems. By studying examples of "easy problems that LLMs get wrong," the authors aim to uncover the biases and shortcomings of current language models, informing future research and development efforts.

The findings in this paper underscore the importance of looking beyond narrow measures of accuracy when evaluating the capabilities of AI systems. Developing a deeper understanding of the reasoning and problem-solving abilities of LLMs is crucial for ensuring that these powerful tools are deployed responsibly and effectively.



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

Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning: Progresses and Challenges

Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning: Progresses and Challenges

Janice Ahn, Rishu Verma, Renze Lou, Di Liu, Rui Zhang, Wenpeng Yin

YC

0

Reddit

0

Mathematical reasoning serves as a cornerstone for assessing the fundamental cognitive capabilities of human intelligence. In recent times, there has been a notable surge in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) geared towards the automated resolution of mathematical problems. However, the landscape of mathematical problem types is vast and varied, with LLM-oriented techniques undergoing evaluation across diverse datasets and settings. This diversity makes it challenging to discern the true advancements and obstacles within this burgeoning field. This survey endeavors to address four pivotal dimensions: i) a comprehensive exploration of the various mathematical problems and their corresponding datasets that have been investigated; ii) an examination of the spectrum of LLM-oriented techniques that have been proposed for mathematical problem-solving; iii) an overview of factors and concerns affecting LLMs in solving math; and iv) an elucidation of the persisting challenges within this domain. To the best of our knowledge, this survey stands as one of the first extensive examinations of the landscape of LLMs in the realm of mathematics, providing a holistic perspective on the current state, accomplishments, and future challenges in this rapidly evolving field.

Read more

4/8/2024

Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey

Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey

Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank

YC

0

Reddit

0

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning, leading to a lively debate on whether these models possess reasoning capabilities similar to humans. However, despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain. This uncertainty partly stems from the predominant focus on task performance, measured through shallow accuracy metrics, rather than a thorough investigation of the models' reasoning behavior. This paper seeks to address this gap by providing a comprehensive review of studies that go beyond task accuracy, offering deeper insights into the models' reasoning processes. Furthermore, we survey prevalent methodologies to evaluate the reasoning behavior of LLMs, emphasizing current trends and efforts towards more nuanced reasoning analyses. Our review suggests that LLMs tend to rely on surface-level patterns and correlations in their training data, rather than on genuine reasoning abilities. Additionally, we identify the need for further research that delineates the key differences between human and LLM-based reasoning. Through this survey, we aim to shed light on the complex reasoning processes within LLMs.

Read more

4/3/2024

💬

Evaluating the Deductive Competence of Large Language Models

Spencer M. Seals, Valerie L. Shalin

YC

0

Reddit

0

The development of highly fluent large language models (LLMs) has prompted increased interest in assessing their reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. We investigate whether several LLMs can solve a classic type of deductive reasoning problem from the cognitive science literature. The tested LLMs have limited abilities to solve these problems in their conventional form. We performed follow up experiments to investigate if changes to the presentation format and content improve model performance. We do find performance differences between conditions; however, they do not improve overall performance. Moreover, we find that performance interacts with presentation format and content in unexpected ways that differ from human performance. Overall, our results suggest that LLMs have unique reasoning biases that are only partially predicted from human reasoning performance and the human-generated language corpora that informs them.

Read more

4/16/2024

LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models

LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models

Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral

YC

0

Reddit

0

Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really reason over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied. However, the crucial skill pertaining to 'logical reasoning' has remained underexplored. Existing work investigating this reasoning ability of LLMs has focused only on a couple of inference rules (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) of propositional and first-order logic. Addressing the above limitation, we comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of LLMs on 25 different reasoning patterns spanning over propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logics. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce LogicBench, a natural language question-answering dataset focusing on the use of a single inference rule. We conduct detailed analysis with a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama-2, and Mistral using chain-of-thought prompting. Experimental results show that existing LLMs do not fare well on LogicBench; especially, they struggle with instances involving complex reasoning and negations. Furthermore, they sometimes overlook contextual information necessary for reasoning to arrive at the correct conclusion. We believe that our work and findings facilitate future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Mihir3009/LogicBench.

Read more

6/7/2024