General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a general-purpose verification system for chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, a technique used to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
- The proposed system aims to verify the correctness and logical flow of the step-by-step reasoning process generated by LLMs in response to complex prompts.
- The authors evaluate their approach on a diverse set of tasks, demonstrating its effectiveness in catching errors and inconsistencies in the CoT responses.
Plain English Explanation
The paper describes a new system that can check the reasoning process used by large language models when they are asked to solve complex problems. Large language models are AI systems that are trained on huge amounts of text data and can generate human-like responses to prompts.
However, when these models are asked to solve multi-step problems, their responses may contain errors or logical inconsistencies. The new verification system proposed in this paper is designed to catch these issues and ensure the reasoning process is sound.
The authors test their verification system on a variety of tasks, and show that it is effective at identifying flaws in the step-by-step reasoning provided by language models. This is an important development, as it can help improve the reliability and trustworthiness of these powerful AI systems when they are used to tackle complex real-world problems.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a general purpose verification for chain of thought prompting system that can check the correctness and logical flow of the step-by-step reasoning process generated by large language models.
The authors draw inspiration from previous work on demystifying chains, trees, and graphs of thoughts and using small language models to help large language models. They develop a verification framework that leverages a separate "verifier" model to assess the validity and coherence of the reasoning chains produced by the primary language model.
The verifier model is trained on a dataset of correct and incorrect reasoning chains, allowing it to learn the characteristics of sound logical flow. During evaluation, the verifier examines the step-by-step reasoning provided by the language model and identifies any inconsistencies or errors.
The authors test their approach on a diverse set of tasks, including LLM reasoners - a new evaluation library and analysis and CoTAR: Chain of Thought Attribution Reasoning for Multi-Level. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the verification system in catching flaws in the language model's reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling solution to a crucial challenge in the development of reliable and trustworthy large language models. The proposed verification system addresses a key limitation of these models - their tendency to generate responses with logical inconsistencies or errors when tackling complex, multi-step problems.
One potential limitation of the approach is the reliance on a separate verifier model, which adds complexity and may introduce its own biases or errors. The authors acknowledge this and suggest exploring ways to integrate the verification capabilities more seamlessly into the primary language model.
Additionally, the evaluation focuses on a relatively narrow set of tasks, and further research may be needed to assess the generalizability of the verification system across a wider range of real-world applications. The authors also note that the current system is not able to provide detailed feedback on the nature of the errors, which could limit its usefulness in certain contexts.
Overall, the paper makes a significant contribution to the field of AI safety and reliability, and the proposed verification system represents an important step towards more trustworthy and capable large language models.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel general-purpose verification system for chain-of-thought prompting, a technique used to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models. By employing a separate verifier model to assess the validity and coherence of the step-by-step reasoning generated by the primary language model, the authors have developed a powerful tool for improving the reliability and trustworthiness of these AI systems.
The successful evaluation of the verification system across a diverse set of tasks highlights its potential to address a crucial limitation of large language models - their tendency to produce responses with logical inconsistencies or errors when tackling complex, multi-step problems. While the approach has some limitations, the insights and techniques described in this paper represent an important advancement in the field of AI safety and reliability, with significant implications for the real-world deployment of these powerful AI technologies.
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
0
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
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 more5/2/2024
💬
0
Why Can Large Language Models Generate Correct Chain-of-Thoughts?
Rasul Tutunov, Antoine Grosnit, Juliusz Ziomek, Jun Wang, Haitham Bou-Ammar
This paper delves into the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), specifically focusing on advancing the theoretical comprehension of chain-of-thought prompting. We investigate how LLMs can be effectively induced to generate a coherent chain of thoughts. To achieve this, we introduce a two-level hierarchical graphical model tailored for natural language generation. Within this framework, we establish a compelling geometrical convergence rate that gauges the likelihood of an LLM-generated chain of thoughts compared to those originating from the true language. Our findings provide a theoretical justification for the ability of LLMs to produce the correct sequence of thoughts (potentially) explaining performance gains in tasks demanding reasoning skills.
Read more6/7/2024
0
A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains
Alon Jacovi, Yonatan Bitton, Bernd Bohnet, Jonathan Herzig, Or Honovich, Michael Tseng, Michael Collins, Roee Aharoni, Mor Geva
Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., Chain-of-Thought) is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce REVEAL: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question-answering settings. REVEAL includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models. Evaluation on REVEAL shows that verifiers struggle at verifying reasoning chains - in particular, verifying logical correctness and detecting contradictions. Available at https://reveal-dataset.github.io/ .
Read more5/22/2024
0
Reasoning with Large Language Models, a Survey
Aske Plaat, Annie Wong, Suzan Verberne, Joost Broekens, Niki van Stein, Thomas Back
Scaling up language models to billions of parameters has opened up possibilities for in-context learning, allowing instruction tuning and few-shot learning on tasks that the model was not specifically trained for. This has achieved breakthrough performance on language tasks such as translation, summarization, and question-answering. Furthermore, in addition to these associative System 1 tasks, recent advances in Chain-of-thought prompt learning have demonstrated strong System 2 reasoning abilities, answering a question in the field of artificial general intelligence whether LLMs can reason. The field started with the question whether LLMs can solve grade school math word problems. This paper reviews the rapidly expanding field of prompt-based reasoning with LLMs. Our taxonomy identifies different ways to generate, evaluate, and control multi-step reasoning. We provide an in-depth coverage of core approaches and open problems, and we propose a research agenda for the near future. Finally, we highlight the relation between reasoning and prompt-based learning, and we discuss the relation between reasoning, sequential decision processes, and reinforcement learning. We find that self-improvement, self-reflection, and some metacognitive abilities of the reasoning processes are possible through the judicious use of prompts. True self-improvement and self-reasoning, to go from reasoning with LLMs to reasoning by LLMs, remains future work.
Read more7/17/2024