# Thinking Tokens for Language Modeling

2405.08644

6

0

š¬

## Abstract

How much is 56 times 37? Language models often make mistakes in these types of difficult calculations. This is usually explained by their inability to perform complex reasoning. Since language models rely on large training sets and great memorization capability, naturally they are not equipped to run complex calculations. However, one can argue that humans also cannot perform this calculation immediately and require a considerable amount of time to construct the solution. In order to enhance the generalization capability of language models, and as a parallel to human behavior, we propose to use special 'thinking tokens' which allow the model to perform much more calculations whenever a complex problem is encountered.

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

## Overview

- Language models can struggle with complex calculations due to their reliance on large training sets and memorization rather than reasoning abilities.
- To enhance the generalization capabilities of language models, the paper proposes using "thinking tokens" to allow the model to perform more complex computations.
- The authors argue that humans also require time to construct solutions for certain types of calculations, drawing a parallel between human and language model behavior.

## Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses the challenges language models face when performing complex calculations. Language models can learn temporal reasoning, but they often struggle with tasks that require mathematical problem-solving. This is because language models rely heavily on their training data and memorization, rather than the ability to reason through problems step-by-step.

To address this, the paper suggests introducing "thinking tokens" that would allow language models to perform more complex calculations. The authors draw a parallel between language model behavior and human behavior, noting that even humans cannot immediately solve certain types of calculations and require time to construct the solution.

By incorporating these "thinking tokens," the researchers hope to enhance the generalization capabilities of language models, enabling them to handle a wider range of problems, similar to how humans approach complex calculations.

## Technical Explanation

The paper does not provide any specific technical details or experimental results. It primarily discusses the limitations of language models when it comes to performing complex calculations and proposes the use of "thinking tokens" as a potential solution.

The authors argue that language models, despite their impressive capabilities in natural language tasks, struggle with mathematical reasoning due to their reliance on large training sets and memorization rather than true reasoning abilities.

The paper suggests that the introduction of "thinking tokens" could allow language models to perform more complex computations, drawing a parallel to how humans also require time to construct solutions for certain types of calculations.

## Critical Analysis

The paper does not present any empirical evidence or experimental results to support its proposal of using "thinking tokens" to enhance language model capabilities. It remains a conceptual idea without a concrete implementation or evaluation.

While the authors make a valid point about the limitations of language models in handling complex calculations, the proposed solution of "thinking tokens" is not elaborated on or justified in detail. It is unclear how these tokens would be implemented, what their specific functionality would be, and how they would improve the model's generalization abilities.

Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or drawbacks of incorporating "thinking tokens" into language models, such as the impact on model complexity, training, or performance on other tasks.

## Conclusion

The paper highlights an important limitation of current language models ā their struggle with performing complex calculations due to their heavy reliance on training data and memorization rather than reasoning abilities.

To address this, the authors propose the use of "thinking tokens" as a potential solution to enhance the generalization capabilities of language models. However, the paper lacks technical details, experimental evidence, and a thorough discussion of the proposed approach's feasibility and potential drawbacks.

While the core idea of improving language model performance on mathematical reasoning tasks is valuable, the paper serves more as a conceptual discussion than a concrete contribution to the field. Further research and experimentation would be needed to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the "thinking tokens" approach.

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

### Language Models Do Hard Arithmetic Tasks Easily and Hardly Do Easy Arithmetic Tasks

Andrew Gambardella, Yusuke Iwasawa, Yutaka Matsuo

0

0

The ability (and inability) of large language models (LLMs) to perform arithmetic tasks has been the subject of much theoretical and practical debate. We show that LLMs are frequently able to correctly and confidently predict the first digit of n-digit by m-digit multiplication tasks without using chain of thought reasoning, despite these tasks require compounding operations to solve. Simultaneously, LLMs in practice often fail to correctly or confidently predict the last digit of an n-digit by m-digit multiplication, a task equivalent to 1-digit by 1-digit multiplication which can be easily learned or memorized. We show that the latter task can be solved more robustly when the LLM is conditioned on all of the correct higher-order digits, which on average increases the confidence of the correct last digit on 5-digit by 5-digit multiplication tasks using Llama 2-13B by over 230% (0.13 to 0.43) and Mistral-7B by 150% (0.22 to 0.55).

6/5/2024

š¬

### Investigating Symbolic Capabilities of Large Language Models

Neisarg Dave, Daniel Kifer, C. Lee Giles, Ankur Mali

0

0

Prompting techniques have significantly enhanced the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various complex tasks, including reasoning, planning, and solving math word problems. However, most research has predominantly focused on language-based reasoning and word problems, often overlooking the potential of LLMs in handling symbol-based calculations and reasoning. This study aims to bridge this gap by rigorously evaluating LLMs on a series of symbolic tasks, such as addition, multiplication, modulus arithmetic, numerical precision, and symbolic counting. Our analysis encompasses eight LLMs, including four enterprise-grade and four open-source models, of which three have been pre-trained on mathematical tasks. The assessment framework is anchored in Chomsky's Hierarchy, providing a robust measure of the computational abilities of these models. The evaluation employs minimally explained prompts alongside the zero-shot Chain of Thoughts technique, allowing models to navigate the solution process autonomously. The findings reveal a significant decline in LLMs' performance on context-free and context-sensitive symbolic tasks as the complexity, represented by the number of symbols, increases. Notably, even the fine-tuned GPT3.5 exhibits only marginal improvements, mirroring the performance trends observed in other models. Across the board, all models demonstrated a limited generalization ability on these symbol-intensive tasks. This research underscores LLMs' challenges with increasing symbolic complexity and highlights the need for specialized training, memory and architectural adjustments to enhance their proficiency in symbol-based reasoning tasks.

5/24/2024

### Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong

Sean Williams, James Huckle

0

0

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.

6/4/2024

### Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning

Siheng Xiong, Ali Payani, Ramana Kompella, Faramarz Fekri

0

0

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, they are not without their flaws and inaccuracies. Recent studies have introduced various methods to mitigate these limitations. Temporal reasoning (TR), in particular, presents a significant challenge for LLMs due to its reliance on diverse temporal concepts and intricate temporal logic. In this paper, we propose TG-LLM, a novel framework towards language-based TR. Instead of reasoning over the original context, we adopt a latent representation, temporal graph (TG) that enhances the learning of TR. A synthetic dataset (TGQA), which is fully controllable and requires minimal supervision, is constructed for fine-tuning LLMs on this text-to-TG translation task. We confirmed in experiments that the capability of TG translation learned on our dataset can be transferred to other TR tasks and benchmarks. On top of that, we teach LLM to perform deliberate reasoning over the TGs via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) bootstrapping and graph data augmentation. We observed that those strategies, which maintain a balance between usefulness and diversity, bring more reliable CoTs and final results than the vanilla CoT distillation.

6/12/2024