Can Large Language Models Always Solve Easy Problems if They Can Solve Harder Ones?
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) that can solve complex tasks can also reliably solve simpler problems.
- The researchers developed the ConsisEval benchmark to assess the consistency and reasoning capabilities of LLMs across a range of problem difficulties.
- The findings suggest that despite their impressive performance on challenging tasks, LLMs can exhibit inconsistent and biased behavior on simpler problems, highlighting the need for more robust evaluations of these models.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores whether large language models that are capable of tackling complex problems can also reliably solve simpler tasks. To investigate this, the researchers created a new benchmark called ConsisEval. This benchmark tests the consistency and reasoning abilities of LLMs across a range of problem difficulties.
The key finding is that even though these models perform well on challenging tasks, they can exhibit inconsistent and biased behavior when faced with simpler problems. This suggests that the impressive performance of LLMs may not always translate to reliable problem-solving, and more comprehensive evaluations are needed to fully understand their capabilities and limitations.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents the ConsisEval benchmark, which was designed to assess the consistency and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across a range of problem difficulties. The benchmark includes tasks that vary in complexity, from simple logical reasoning to more abstract and contextual problems.
The researchers evaluated several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3, PaLM, and InstructGPT, on the ConsisEval benchmark. The results showed that while the models performed well on the more difficult tasks, they often exhibited inconsistent and biased behavior on the simpler problems. This suggests that the impressive performance of LLMs on challenging tasks may not necessarily translate to reliable problem-solving abilities, even for relatively straightforward problems.
The paper also discusses the potential implications of these findings, emphasizing the need for more robust and comprehensive evaluations of LLMs to better understand their capabilities and limitations. The authors suggest that the ConsisEval benchmark can serve as a valuable tool for assessing the consistency and reasoning abilities of these models, which is crucial as they become increasingly influential in various applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the limitations of large language models, highlighting the importance of comprehensive evaluation beyond just their performance on complex tasks. The ConsisEval benchmark offers a novel way to assess the consistency and reasoning capabilities of LLMs, which is an important consideration as these models become more widely adopted.
One potential area for further research is to explore the underlying reasons for the inconsistent and biased behavior of LLMs on simpler problems. The paper suggests that factors like the training data and task formulation may play a role, but a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind these issues could lead to more effective strategies for improving model robustness.
Additionally, the paper focuses on evaluating the performance of LLMs, but it would be valuable to also consider the broader implications of these models' limitations, such as their impact on real-world applications and decision-making processes. Further research into the practical consequences of inconsistent and biased behavior in LLMs could provide important insights for the responsible development and deployment of these technologies.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the need to go beyond just evaluating the performance of large language models on complex tasks and to also assess their consistency and reasoning capabilities across a range of problem difficulties. The ConsisEval benchmark developed by the researchers provides a valuable tool for this purpose, and the findings suggest that even impressive LLMs can exhibit inconsistent and biased behavior on simpler problems.
As these models become increasingly influential in various applications, understanding their limitations and ensuring their reliable and unbiased performance is crucial. The insights from this paper highlight the need for more comprehensive evaluations of LLMs and the importance of developing strategies to improve their robustness and consistency, ultimately leading to more trustworthy and beneficial applications of these powerful technologies.
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
Can Large Language Models Always Solve Easy Problems if They Can Solve Harder Ones?
Zhe Yang, Yichang Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Jian Yang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, Zhifang Sui
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but still suffer from inconsistency issues (e.g. LLMs can react differently to disturbances like rephrasing or inconsequential order change). In addition to these inconsistencies, we also observe that LLMs, while capable of solving hard problems, can paradoxically fail at easier ones. To evaluate this hard-to-easy inconsistency, we develop the ConsisEval benchmark, where each entry comprises a pair of questions with a strict order of difficulty. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of consistency score to quantitatively measure this inconsistency and analyze the potential for improvement in consistency by relative consistency score. Based on comprehensive experiments across a variety of existing models, we find: (1) GPT-4 achieves the highest consistency score of 92.2% but is still inconsistent to specific questions due to distraction by redundant information, misinterpretation of questions, etc.; (2) models with stronger capabilities typically exhibit higher consistency, but exceptions also exist; (3) hard data enhances consistency for both fine-tuning and in-context learning. Our data and code will be publicly available on GitHub.
Read more6/19/2024
0
Are Large Language Models Consistent over Value-laden Questions?
Jared Moore, Tanvi Deshpande, Diyi Yang
Large language models (LLMs) appear to bias their survey answers toward certain values. Nonetheless, some argue that LLMs are too inconsistent to simulate particular values. Are they? To answer, we first define value consistency as the similarity of answers across (1) paraphrases of one question, (2) related questions under one topic, (3) multiple-choice and open-ended use-cases of one question, and (4) multilingual translations of a question to English, Chinese, German, and Japanese. We apply these measures to a few large ($>=34b$), open LLMs including llama-3, as well as gpt-4o, using eight thousand questions spanning more than 300 topics. Unlike prior work, we find that models are relatively consistent across paraphrases, use-cases, translations, and within a topic. Still, some inconsistencies remain. Models are more consistent on uncontroversial topics (e.g., in the U.S., Thanksgiving) than on controversial ones (euthanasia). Base models are both more consistent compared to fine-tuned models and are uniform in their consistency across topics, while fine-tuned models are more inconsistent about some topics (euthanasia) than others (women's rights) like our human subjects (n=165).
Read more7/4/2024
💬
0
Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models
Yash Saxena, Sarthak Chopra, Arunendra Mani Tripathi
Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance, for tasks such as text generation, summarization, and translation. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This behavior can be attributed to several factors, with consistency and reasoning capabilities being significant contributors. LLMs frequently lack the ability to generate explanations and engage in coherent reasoning, leading to inaccurate responses. Moreover, they exhibit inconsistencies in their outputs. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs. The experiments utilize the Boolq dataset as the ground truth, comprising questions, answers, and corresponding explanations. Queries from the dataset are presented as prompts to the LLMs, and the generated responses are evaluated against the ground truth answers. Additionally, explanations are generated to assess the models' reasoning abilities. Consistency is evaluated by repeatedly presenting the same query to the models and observing for variations in their responses. For measuring reasoning capabilities, the generated explanations are compared to the ground truth explanations using metrics such as BERT, BLEU, and F-1 scores. The findings reveal that proprietary models generally outperform public models in terms of both consistency and reasoning capabilities. However, even when presented with basic general knowledge questions, none of the models achieved a score of 90% in both consistency and reasoning. This study underscores the direct correlation between consistency and reasoning abilities in LLMs and highlights the inherent reasoning challenges present in current language models.
Read more4/26/2024
0
When is the consistent prediction likely to be a correct prediction?
Alex Nguyen, Dheeraj Mekala, Chengyu Dong, Jingbo Shang
Self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023) suggests that the most consistent answer obtained through large language models (LLMs) is more likely to be correct. In this paper, we challenge this argument and propose a nuanced correction. Our observations indicate that consistent answers derived through more computation i.e. longer reasoning texts, rather than simply the most consistent answer across all outputs, are more likely to be correct. This is predominantly because we demonstrate that LLMs can autonomously produce chain-of-thought (CoT) style reasoning with no custom prompts merely while generating longer responses, which lead to consistent predictions that are more accurate. In the zero-shot setting, by sampling Mixtral-8x7B model multiple times and considering longer responses, we achieve 86% of its self-consistency performance obtained through zero-shot CoT prompting on the GSM8K and MultiArith datasets. Finally, we demonstrate that the probability of LLMs generating a longer response is quite low, highlighting the need for decoding strategies conditioned on output length.
Read more7/9/2024