Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse
Overview
- Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning can improve performance on certain tasks, but can also reduce performance in cases where thinking makes humans worse.
- The paper examines how CoT affects performance on tasks where intuitive thinking outperforms deliberative reasoning.
- Findings suggest CoT can lead to suboptimal choices by encouraging overthinking on some problems.
Plain English Explanation
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is a technique where AI systems break down a problem into a series of steps, reasoning through it methodically. This can help solve complex tasks, but the paper suggests it may not always be the best approach.
The researchers found that for certain types of problems, humans actually perform better by relying on their intuition rather than deliberative, step-by-step thinking. In these cases, the CoT process can lead the AI to overthink the problem and make suboptimal choices.
Intuitively, this makes sense - there are some situations where the best approach is to go with your gut feeling rather than overanalyzing. The paper provides examples of how CoT can backfire and reduce performance in these types of tasks.
The key insight is that the benefits of CoT reasoning depend on the nature of the problem. While it can be very powerful for complex, analytical tasks, it may actually hinder performance where human intuition outperforms deliberative thinking. The researchers suggest that AI systems need to be able to recognize when CoT is the right approach and when it's better to rely more on quick, intuitive responses.
Key Findings
- CoT can reduce performance on tasks where intuitive thinking outperforms deliberative reasoning.
- Systematically working through a problem step-by-step can lead to "overthinking" and suboptimal choices in some cases.
- The benefits of CoT depend on the nature of the task - it works well for complex analytical problems, but can backfire where human intuition is superior.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines how Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning affects performance on tasks where intuitive thinking outperforms deliberative reasoning. CoT is a technique where AI systems break down a problem into a sequence of interpretable steps, allowing them to show their work and provide explanations.
The researchers hypothesized that while CoT can improve performance on many tasks, it may actually reduce performance in situations where humans naturally outperform through intuition rather than deliberation. To test this, they designed experiments comparing CoT and non-CoT approaches on various types of problems.
Their results showed that CoT did indeed lead to worse performance on tasks where intuitive thinking was superior to analytical reasoning. The step-by-step nature of CoT caused participants to overthink the problems, leading to suboptimal choices. In contrast, participants who relied more on immediate intuition performed better on these tasks.
The key insight is that the benefits of CoT depend on the task at hand. For complex, analytical problems, the systematic reasoning process can be very powerful. However, for simpler tasks where humans excel through quick, instinctual responses, the CoT approach can actually hinder performance by encouraging excessive deliberation.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the limitations of Chain-of-Thought reasoning and the importance of recognizing when intuitive thinking is more appropriate than deliberative analysis. The experiments are well-designed and the results are clearly presented.
One potential limitation is the specific tasks used in the studies - while they were carefully selected to represent situations where intuition outperforms analysis, the findings may not generalize to all real-world problems. Additional research testing a wider range of tasks would help validate the conclusions.
The paper also does not delve deeply into the cognitive mechanisms underlying the observed performance differences. Further investigation into the psychological factors that cause CoT to backfire in certain contexts could yield additional insights.
Overall, this work highlights an important consideration for the development of advanced AI systems. While CoT can be a powerful technique, the findings suggest that AI agents need to be able to dynamically assess whether a systematic, step-by-step approach or a more intuitive response is better suited for the task at hand.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates that the benefits of Chain-of-Thought reasoning are not universal - in some cases, it can actually reduce performance compared to more intuitive, instinctual approaches. The key is recognizing that the optimal reasoning strategy depends on the nature of the problem.
By better understanding the tradeoffs between deliberative and intuitive thinking, researchers can work towards AI systems that can adaptively choose the most appropriate problem-solving strategy. This is an important step in developing AI agents that can match or even surpass human intelligence across a wide range of tasks and domains.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
256
Related Papers
256
Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse
Ryan Liu, Jiayi Geng, Addison J. Wu, Ilia Sucholutsky, Tania Lombrozo, Thomas L. Griffiths
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become a widely used strategy for working with large language and multimodal models. While CoT has been shown to improve performance across many tasks, determining the settings in which it is effective remains an ongoing effort. In particular, it is still an open question in what settings CoT systematically reduces model performance. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of tasks where CoT reduces performance by drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, looking at cases where (i) verbal thinking or deliberation hurts performance in humans, and (ii) the constraints governing human performance generalize to language models. Three such cases are implicit statistical learning, visual recognition, and classifying with patterns containing exceptions. In extensive experiments across all three settings, we find that a diverse collection of state-of-the-art models exhibit significant drop-offs in performance (e.g., up to 36.3% absolute accuracy for OpenAI o1-preview compared to GPT-4o) when using inference-time reasoning compared to zero-shot counterparts. We also identify three tasks that satisfy condition (i) but not (ii), and find that while verbal thinking reduces human performance in these tasks, CoT retains or increases model performance. Overall, our results show that while there is not an exact parallel between the cognitive processes of models and those of humans, considering cases where thinking has negative consequences for human performance can help us identify settings where it negatively impacts models. By connecting the literature on human deliberation with evaluations of CoT, we offer a new tool that can be used in understanding the impact of prompt choices and inference-time reasoning.
Read more10/30/2024
❗
1
Chain of Thoughtlessness: An Analysis of CoT in Planning
Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, Subbarao Kambhampati
Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated with chain of thought prompting-a method of demonstrating 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 examines 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. We also create scalable variants of three domains commonly studied in previous CoT papers and demonstrate the existence of similar failure modes. 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 but depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.
Read more6/7/2024
0
To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning
Zayne Sprague, Fangcong Yin, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Dongwei Jiang, Manya Wadhwa, Prasann Singhal, Xinyu Zhao, Xi Ye, Kyle Mahowald, Greg Durrett
Chain-of-thought (CoT) via prompting is the de facto method for eliciting reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). But for what kinds of tasks is this extra ``thinking'' really helpful? To analyze this, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis covering over 100 papers using CoT and ran our own evaluations of 20 datasets across 14 models. Our results show that CoT gives strong performance benefits primarily on tasks involving math or logic, with much smaller gains on other types of tasks. On MMLU, directly generating the answer without CoT leads to almost identical accuracy as CoT unless the question or model's response contains an equals sign, indicating symbolic operations and reasoning. Following this finding, we analyze the behavior of CoT on these problems by separating planning and execution and comparing against tool-augmented LLMs. Much of CoT's gain comes from improving symbolic execution, but it underperforms relative to using a symbolic solver. Our results indicate that CoT can be applied selectively, maintaining performance while saving inference costs. Furthermore, they suggest a need to move beyond prompt-based CoT to new paradigms that better leverage intermediate computation across the whole range of LLM applications.
Read more10/30/2024
0
Supervised Chain of Thought
Xiang Zhang, Dujian Ding
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing and hold immense potential for advancing Artificial Intelligence. However, the core architecture of most mainstream LLMs -- the Transformer -- has inherent limitations in computational depth, rendering them theoretically incapable of solving many reasoning tasks that demand increasingly deep computations. Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a technique to address these architectural limitations, as evidenced by several theoretical studies. It offers a promising approach to solving complex reasoning tasks that were previously beyond the capabilities of these models. Despite its successes, CoT and its variants (such as Tree of Thought, Graph of Thought, etc.) rely on a one-prompt-for-all approach, using a single prompt structure (e.g., think step by step) for a wide range of tasks -- from counting and sorting to solving mathematical and algorithmic problems. This approach poses significant challenges for models to generate the correct reasoning steps, as the model must navigate through a vast prompt template space to find the appropriate template for each task. In this work, we build upon previous theoretical analyses of CoT to demonstrate how the one-prompt-for-all approach can negatively affect the computability of LLMs. We partition the solution search space into two: the prompt space and the answer space. Our findings show that task-specific supervision is essential for navigating the prompt space accurately and achieving optimal performance. Through experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs, we reveal a gap in reasoning performance when supervision is applied versus when it is not.
Read more10/21/2024