A Benchmark Suite for Systematically Evaluating Reasoning Shortcuts
0
🏋️
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces a set of benchmarks for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of different AI models, including neural networks, neuro-symbolic systems, and foundation models.
- The benchmarks focus on common types of reasoning shortcuts that these models may take, which can lead to inaccurate or biased outputs.
- The authors argue that systematically testing for these reasoning shortcuts is crucial for developing AI systems that can engage in reliable and robust reasoning.
Plain English Explanation
The paper is about creating a set of tests, or "benchmarks," to evaluate how well different AI systems can reason and think through problems. The authors are worried that many AI models today might take "shortcuts" in their reasoning, leading to mistakes or biases in their outputs.
For example, an AI system might be good at answering questions about the world, but it might be relying on superficial patterns in the data rather than truly understanding the underlying concepts. The benchmarks proposed in this paper are designed to expose these sorts of reasoning shortcuts and help developers build AI systems that can reason more reliably and robustly.
The benchmarks cover a range of reasoning tasks, from LogicBench for testing logical reasoning to RAR-B for testing retrieval-based reasoning. By putting AI models through these tests, the authors hope to gain a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately help advance the field of AI towards more trustworthy and capable systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a set of benchmarks designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of different AI models, including neural networks, neuro-symbolic systems, and foundation models.
The key focus of these benchmarks is on identifying and testing for common "reasoning shortcuts" that these models may take. Reasoning shortcuts refer to the tendency of AI systems to rely on superficial patterns in the data rather than truly understanding the underlying concepts and principles. This can lead to inaccurate or biased outputs, which is a serious concern for the development of trustworthy and reliable AI systems.
The benchmarks cover a range of reasoning tasks, including logical reasoning, retrieval-based reasoning, spatial reasoning, and strategic reasoning. By exposing the models to these challenges, the authors aim to gain a deeper understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and the types of reasoning shortcuts they may be taking.
Critical Analysis
The authors make a compelling case for the importance of systematically evaluating the reasoning capabilities of AI models. The proposed benchmarks appear to be well-designed and cover a diverse range of reasoning tasks, which should provide valuable insights into the models' performance and limitations.
However, one potential limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on identifying reasoning shortcuts, without necessarily providing clear solutions or guidance for how to address these issues. While the benchmarks can help diagnose the problem, more work may be needed to develop strategies for training AI systems to reason more robustly and reliably.
Additionally, the authors acknowledge that the benchmarks may not capture all the nuances of real-world reasoning, and that further work is needed to expand the scope and complexity of the tests. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, the benchmarks will need to evolve to keep pace with the latest advancements in the field.
Conclusion
This paper presents a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to develop trustworthy and reliable AI systems. By focusing on the issue of reasoning shortcuts, the authors have developed a set of benchmarks that can help researchers and developers better understand the strengths and limitations of different AI models.
The insights gained from these benchmarks can inform the design of future AI systems, ultimately leading to the creation of more robust and trustworthy AI that can reliably reason about complex problems and make sound decisions. As the field of AI continues to evolve, this type of systematic evaluation will be crucial for ensuring that the technology fulfills its promise to benefit society.
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
A Benchmark Suite for Systematically Evaluating Reasoning Shortcuts
Samuele Bortolotti, Emanuele Marconato, Tommaso Carraro, Paolo Morettin, Emile van Krieken, Antonio Vergari, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini
The advent of powerful neural classifiers has increased interest in problems that require both learning and reasoning. These problems are critical for understanding important properties of models, such as trustworthiness, generalization, interpretability, and compliance to safety and structural constraints. However, recent research observed that tasks requiring both learning and reasoning on background knowledge often suffer from reasoning shortcuts (RSs): predictors can solve the downstream reasoning task without associating the correct concepts to the high-dimensional data. To address this issue, we introduce rsbench, a comprehensive benchmark suite designed to systematically evaluate the impact of RSs on models by providing easy access to highly customizable tasks affected by RSs. Furthermore, rsbench implements common metrics for evaluating concept quality and introduces novel formal verification procedures for assessing the presence of RSs in learning tasks. Using rsbench, we highlight that obtaining high quality concepts in both purely neural and neuro-symbolic models is a far-from-solved problem. rsbench is available at: https://unitn-sml.github.io/rsbench.
Read more6/18/2024
0
LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models
Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really reason over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied. However, the crucial skill pertaining to 'logical reasoning' has remained underexplored. Existing work investigating this reasoning ability of LLMs has focused only on a couple of inference rules (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) of propositional and first-order logic. Addressing the above limitation, we comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of LLMs on 25 different reasoning patterns spanning over propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logics. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce LogicBench, a natural language question-answering dataset focusing on the use of a single inference rule. We conduct detailed analysis with a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama-2, and Mistral using chain-of-thought prompting. Experimental results show that existing LLMs do not fare well on LogicBench; especially, they struggle with instances involving complex reasoning and negations. Furthermore, they sometimes overlook contextual information necessary for reasoning to arrive at the correct conclusion. We believe that our work and findings facilitate future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Mihir3009/LogicBench.
Read more6/7/2024
0
NTSEBENCH: Cognitive Reasoning Benchmark for Vision Language Models
Pranshu Pandya, Agney S Talwarr, Vatsal Gupta, Tushar Kataria, Vivek Gupta, Dan Roth
Cognitive textual and visual reasoning tasks, such as puzzles, series, and analogies, demand the ability to quickly reason, decipher, and evaluate patterns both textually and spatially. While LLMs and VLMs, through extensive training on large amounts of human-curated data, have attained a high level of pseudo-human intelligence in some common sense reasoning tasks, they still struggle with more complex reasoning tasks that require cognitive understanding. In this work, we introduce a new dataset, NTSEBench, designed to evaluate the cognitive multi-modal reasoning and problem-solving skills of large models. The dataset comprises 2,728 multiple-choice questions comprising of a total of 4,642 images across 26 categories sampled from the NTSE examination conducted nationwide in India, featuring both visual and textual general aptitude questions that do not rely on rote learning. We establish baselines on the dataset using state-of-the-art LLMs and VLMs. To facilitate a comparison between open source and propriety models, we propose four distinct modeling strategies to handle different modalities (text and images) in the dataset instances.
Read more7/16/2024
0
RAR-b: Reasoning as Retrieval Benchmark
Chenghao Xiao, G Thomas Hudson, Noura Al Moubayed
Semantic textual similartiy (STS) and information retrieval tasks (IR) tasks have been the two major avenues to record the progress of embedding models in the past few years. Under the emerging Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG) paradigm, we envision the need to evaluate next-level language understanding abilities of embedding models, and take a conscious look at the reasoning abilities stored in them. Addressing this, we pose the question: Can retrievers solve reasoning problems? By transforming reasoning tasks into retrieval tasks, we find that without specifically trained for reasoning-level language understanding, current state-of-the-art retriever models may still be far from being competent for playing the role of assisting LLMs, especially in reasoning-intensive tasks. Moreover, albeit trained to be aware of instructions, instruction-aware IR models are often better off without instructions in inference time for reasoning tasks, posing an overlooked retriever-LLM behavioral gap for the research community to align. However, recent decoder-based embedding models show great promise in narrowing the gap, highlighting the pathway for embedding models to achieve reasoning-level language understanding. We also show that, although current off-the-shelf re-ranker models fail on these tasks, injecting reasoning abilities into them through fine-tuning still appears easier than doing so to bi-encoders, and we are able to achieve state-of-the-art performance across all tasks by fine-tuning a reranking model. We release Reasoning as Retrieval Benchmark (RAR-b), a holistic suite of tasks and settings to evaluate the reasoning abilities stored in retriever models. RAR-b is available at https://github.com/gowitheflow-1998/RAR-b.
Read more5/14/2024