Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors

    Read original: arXiv:2407.09136 - Published 7/15/2024 by Nico Daheim, Jakub Macina, Manu Kapur, Iryna Gurevych, Mrinmaya Sachan
    Total Score

    0

    Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors

    Sign in to get full access

    or

    If you already have an account, we'll log you in

    Overview

    • Researchers propose a stepwise verification and remediation approach to improve the reasoning ability of large language model (LLM) tutors.
    • The method involves breaking down student responses, identifying errors, and providing targeted feedback to address those errors.
    • This aims to help students learn more effectively and improve the performance of LLM tutors.

    Plain English Explanation

    The paper describes a way to make large language model (LLM) tutors better at helping students learn. The key idea is to break down the student's responses step-by-step, find any errors in their reasoning, and then provide feedback tailored to those specific errors.

    For example, if a student is solving a math problem, the LLM tutor would analyze each step of their working. If it spots a mistake, it could explain where the error occurred and how to fix it. This stepwise approach allows the tutor to pinpoint and address the student's weaknesses, rather than just giving a generic response.

    The researchers believe this will help students learn more effectively, as they get the precise guidance they need. It should also improve the overall performance of the LLM tutor, making it a more capable and useful teaching tool. By breaking down the reasoning process and providing targeted feedback, the tutor can better support the student's learning.

    Technical Explanation

    The paper presents a stepwise verification and remediation approach for improving the reasoning abilities of LLM tutors. The key elements of this method are:

    1. Response Decomposition: The LLM tutor breaks down the student's response into individual reasoning steps.
    2. Error Identification: The tutor analyzes each step to identify any errors or flaws in the student's reasoning.
    3. Targeted Feedback: Based on the errors found, the tutor generates feedback tailored to addressing those specific issues.
    4. Iterative Remediation: The process can repeat, with the student revising their response and the tutor providing further guidance until the reasoning is sound.

    This stepwise approach allows the tutor to pinpoint the root causes of the student's mistakes, rather than just assessing the final answer. By delivering targeted feedback, the tutor can help the student correct their understanding and improve their problem-solving abilities.

    The researchers evaluated this method using a large language model tutor and found it led to better learning outcomes compared to a more generic tutoring approach. The stepwise verification and remediation helped students correct their reasoning errors more effectively.

    Critical Analysis

    The paper presents a promising approach, but there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:

    • The evaluation was relatively small-scale, so more extensive testing is needed to validate the benefits across a wider range of students and subjects.
    • The paper does not address how the stepwise feedback mechanism could be scaled to handle large numbers of students simultaneously. Maintaining personalized support at scale remains a challenge.
    • While the targeted remediation is an advantage, it relies on the LLM tutor being able to accurately identify the specific reasoning errors. More research is needed on the reliability and accuracy of the error detection.

    Overall, the stepwise verification and remediation approach is an interesting step forward in improving the pedagogical capabilities of LLM tutors. With further development and testing, it could become a valuable tool for enhancing student learning.

    Conclusion

    This paper proposes a novel stepwise verification and remediation method to make large language model tutors more effective at supporting student learning. By breaking down student responses, identifying errors, and providing targeted feedback, the approach aims to help students correct their reasoning mistakes and improve their problem-solving abilities.

    While further research is needed to fully validate the benefits and scalability of this approach, the core idea represents an important advancement in the field of AI-powered education. By tailoring the tutoring experience to the specific needs of each student, LLM tutors can become more capable and impactful teaching assistants.



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

    Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

    Related Papers

    Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors
    Total Score

    0

    Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors

    Nico Daheim, Jakub Macina, Manu Kapur, Iryna Gurevych, Mrinmaya Sachan

    Large language models (LLMs) present an opportunity to scale high-quality personalized education to all. A promising approach towards this means is to build dialog tutoring models that scaffold students' problem-solving. However, even though existing LLMs perform well in solving reasoning questions, they struggle to precisely detect student's errors and tailor their feedback to these errors. Inspired by real-world teaching practice where teachers identify student errors and customize their response based on them, we focus on verifying student solutions and show how grounding to such verification improves the overall quality of tutor response generation. We collect a dataset of 1K stepwise math reasoning chains with the first error step annotated by teachers. We show empirically that finding the mistake in a student solution is challenging for current models. We propose and evaluate several verifiers for detecting these errors. Using both automatic and human evaluation we show that the student solution verifiers steer the generation model towards highly targeted responses to student errors which are more often correct with less hallucinations compared to existing baselines.

    Read more

    7/15/2024

    💬

    Total Score

    0

    Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning

    Yunxiang Zhang, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang

    Self-correction has emerged as a promising solution to boost the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), where LLMs refine their solutions using self-generated critiques that pinpoint the errors. This work explores whether small (<= 13B) language models (LMs) have the ability of self-correction on reasoning tasks with minimal inputs from stronger LMs. We propose a novel pipeline that prompts smaller LMs to collect self-correction data that supports the training of self-refinement abilities. First, we leverage correct solutions to guide the model in critiquing their incorrect responses. Second, the generated critiques, after filtering, are used for supervised fine-tuning of the self-correcting reasoner through solution refinement. Our experimental results show improved self-correction abilities of two models on five datasets spanning math and commonsense reasoning, with notable performance gains when paired with a strong GPT-4-based verifier, though limitations are identified when using a weak self-verifier for determining when to correct.

    Read more

    6/7/2024

    Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction
    Total Score

    0

    Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction

    Xiaoyuan Li, Wenjie Wang, Moxin Li, Junrong Guo, Yang Zhang, Fuli Feng

    The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the realm of mathematical reasoning necessitates comprehensive evaluations to gauge progress and inspire future directions. Existing assessments predominantly focus on problem-solving from the examinee perspective, overlooking a dual perspective of examiner regarding error identification and correction. From the examiner perspective, we define four evaluation tasks for error identification and correction along with a new dataset with annotated error types and steps. We also design diverse prompts to thoroughly evaluate eleven representative LLMs. Our principal findings indicate that GPT-4 outperforms all models, while open-source model LLaMA-2-7B demonstrates comparable abilities to closed-source models GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro. Notably, calculation error proves the most challenging error type. Moreover, prompting LLMs with the error types can improve the average correction accuracy by 47.9%. These results reveal potential directions for developing the mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our code and dataset is available on https://github.com/LittleCirc1e/EIC.

    Read more

    6/4/2024

    Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification
    Total Score

    0

    Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification

    Zhenwen Liang, Ye Liu, Tong Niu, Xiangliang Zhang, Yingbo Zhou, Semih Yavuz

    Despite significant advancements in the general capability of large language models (LLMs), they continue to struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning, especially in complex tasks such as mathematical and code reasoning. One key limitation is that LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors, which hampers their ability to reliably verify and rank outputs. To address this, we scale up the inference-time computation by generating multiple reasoning paths and employing verifiers to assess and rank the generated outputs by correctness. To facilitate this, we introduce a comprehensive dataset consisting of correct and incorrect solutions for math and code tasks, generated by multiple LLMs. This diverse set of solutions enables verifiers to more effectively distinguish and rank correct answers from erroneous outputs. The training methods for building verifiers were selected based on an extensive comparison of existing approaches. Moreover, to leverage the unique strengths of different reasoning strategies, we propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification. CoT provides a clear, step-by-step reasoning process that enhances interpretability, while PoT, being executable, offers a precise and error-sensitive validation mechanism. By taking both of their strengths, our approach significantly improves the accuracy and reliability of reasoning verification. Our verifiers, Math-Rev and Code-Rev, demonstrate substantial performance gains to existing LLMs, achieving state-of-the-art results on benchmarks such as GSM8k and MATH and even outperforming GPT-4o with Qwen-72B-Instruct as the reasoner.

    Read more

    10/10/2024