Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought
0
š
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Modern systems for multi-hop question answering (QA) break questions into a sequence of reasoning steps, called chain-of-thought (CoT).
- These systems often sample and aggregate multiple chains to arrive at a final answer, but discard the intermediate steps.
- While this improves performance, it fails to consider the relationships between steps across chains and does not provide a unified explanation for the predicted answer.
Plain English Explanation
Multi-Chain Reasoning (MCR) is a new approach that aims to address these limitations. Instead of just aggregating final answers, MCR prompts large language models to "meta-reason" over multiple chains of thought. This means the model examines different reasoning chains, mixes information between them, and selects the most relevant facts to generate an explanation and predict the final answer.
The key idea is that by considering the relationships between intermediate reasoning steps, MCR can provide a more unified and transparent explanation for how the final answer was reached. This can help humans better understand and verify the model's reasoning process.
Technical Explanation
The MCR approach works as follows:
- The model first generates multiple chains of thought, each representing a sequence of reasoning steps to arrive at an answer.
- It then meta-reasons over these chains, examining how the different steps relate to each other and selecting the most relevant information.
- Finally, the model uses this meta-reasoning to generate a unified explanation for the predicted answer.
Experiments on 7 multi-hop QA datasets show that MCR outperforms strong baselines. The analysis also reveals that the MCR explanations are of high quality, enabling humans to effectively verify the model's answers.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges some limitations of the MCR approach, such as the computational overhead of generating and reasoning over multiple chains. Additionally, the authors note that further research is needed to fully understand the model's meta-reasoning process and how it compares to human reasoning.
One potential concern is the scalability of the approach, as generating and processing multiple chains of thought could become computationally expensive as the complexity of the questions increases. The authors do not address this issue in depth.
Overall, the MCR approach represents an interesting step towards more transparent and explainable multi-hop question answering systems. However, there is still room for further research to refine the technique and address its limitations.
Conclusion
The Multi-Chain Reasoning (MCR) approach introduces a novel way to leverage multiple chains of thought in multi-hop question answering. By meta-reasoning over these chains, MCR can provide a more unified and transparent explanation for its answers, which can help users better understand and verify the model's reasoning process.
While the technique has some limitations, it represents an important step towards more explainable AI systems that can better collaborate with humans. As the field of multi-hop QA continues to advance, approaches like MCR will likely play a key role in developing more trustworthy and interpretable question answering capabilities.
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
š
0
Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought
Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ben Bogin, Uri Katz, Daniel Deutch, Jonathan Berant
Modern systems for multi-hop question answering (QA) typically break questions into a sequence of reasoning steps, termed chain-of-thought (CoT), before arriving at a final answer. Often, multiple chains are sampled and aggregated through a voting mechanism over the final answers, but the intermediate steps themselves are discarded. While such approaches improve performance, they do not consider the relations between intermediate steps across chains and do not provide a unified explanation for the predicted answer. We introduce Multi-Chain Reasoning (MCR), an approach which prompts large language models to meta-reason over multiple chains of thought, rather than aggregating their answers. MCR examines different reasoning chains, mixes information between them and selects the most relevant facts in generating an explanation and predicting the answer. MCR outperforms strong baselines on 7 multi-hop QA datasets. Moreover, our analysis reveals that MCR explanations exhibit high quality, enabling humans to verify its answers.
Read more8/6/2024
š¬
28
Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, Hai Zhao, George Karypis, Alex Smola
Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on complex reasoning by leveraging chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting to generate intermediate reasoning chains as the rationale to infer the answer. However, existing CoT studies have primarily focused on the language modality. We propose Multimodal-CoT that incorporates language (text) and vision (images) modalities into a two-stage framework that separates rationale generation and answer inference. In this way, answer inference can leverage better generated rationales that are based on multimodal information. Experimental results on ScienceQA and A-OKVQA benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed approach. With Multimodal-CoT, our model under 1 billion parameters achieves state-of-the-art performance on the ScienceQA benchmark. Our analysis indicates that Multimodal-CoT offers the advantages of mitigating hallucination and enhancing convergence speed. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/amazon-science/mm-cot.
Read more5/21/2024
0
CoTAR: Chain-of-Thought Attribution Reasoning with Multi-level Granularity
Moshe Berchansky, Daniel Fleischer, Moshe Wasserblat, Peter Izsak
State-of-the-art performance in QA tasks is currently achieved by systems employing Large Language Models (LLMs), however these models tend to hallucinate information in their responses. One approach focuses on enhancing the generation process by incorporating attribution from the given input to the output. However, the challenge of identifying appropriate attributions and verifying their accuracy against a source is a complex task that requires significant improvements in assessing such systems. We introduce an attribution-oriented Chain-of-Thought reasoning method to enhance the accuracy of attributions. This approach focuses the reasoning process on generating an attribution-centric output. Evaluations on two context-enhanced question-answering datasets using GPT-4 demonstrate improved accuracy and correctness of attributions. In addition, the combination of our method with finetuning enhances the response and attribution accuracy of two smaller LLMs, showing their potential to outperform GPT-4 in some cases.
Read more4/17/2024
0
Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs
Minh-Vuong Nguyen, Linhao Luo, Fatemeh Shiri, Dinh Phung, Yuan-Fang Li, Thuy-Trang Vu, Gholamreza Haffari
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations alongside answers. However, previous research on evaluating LLMs has solely focused on answer accuracy, neglecting the correctness of the generated CoT. In this paper, we delve deeper into the CoT reasoning capabilities of LLMs in multi-hop question answering by utilizing knowledge graphs (KGs). We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT. Through experiments conducted on 5 different families of LLMs across 2 multi-hop question-answering datasets, we find that LLMs possess sufficient knowledge to perform reasoning. However, there exists a significant disparity between answer accuracy and faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs, indicating that they often arrive at correct answers through incorrect reasoning.
Read more6/21/2024