Can Large Language Models Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) by examining their performance on 3-SAT problems, which are a type of Boolean satisfiability problem.
- The researchers use the concept of phase transitions in 3-SAT problems to characterize the reasoning capabilities of different LLMs.
- The study provides insights into the strengths and limitations of LLMs in terms of their logical reasoning abilities.
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), which are AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data to understand and generate human-like language. The researchers used a specific type of logic problem called 3-SAT to test the reasoning abilities of different LLMs.
3-SAT problems involve determining whether a set of logical statements, each containing three variables, can be simultaneously true or not. These problems exhibit a "phase transition" - at a certain point, the problems become much harder to solve as the number of statements increases. The researchers used this phase transition behavior to evaluate how well the LLMs could reason about these logical problems.
By testing the LLMs on 3-SAT problems, the researchers were able to gain insights into the strengths and limitations of these models when it comes to logical reasoning. This information can help developers and researchers understand the types of tasks that LLMs excel at, as well as the areas where their reasoning abilities may be lacking.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) by studying their performance on 3-SAT problems, which are a type of Boolean satisfiability problem. The researchers use the concept of phase transitions in 3-SAT problems to characterize the reasoning capabilities of different LLMs.
3-SAT problems involve determining whether a set of logical statements, each containing three variables, can be simultaneously true or not. These problems exhibit a phase transition, where at a certain point, the problems become much harder to solve as the number of statements increases. The researchers tested various LLMs, including GPT-3, on 3-SAT problems with varying numbers of statements to observe their reasoning abilities.
The results showed that the LLMs were able to solve relatively simple 3-SAT problems, but their performance degraded significantly as the problems became more complex, particularly near the phase transition point. This suggests that while LLMs can handle basic logical reasoning, they struggle with more sophisticated reasoning tasks that require a deeper understanding of the underlying logical concepts.
The researchers also found that the performance of the LLMs varied depending on the specific model and its training process. Some LLMs were more adept at logical reasoning than others, indicating that the development of robust reasoning capabilities in these models is an active area of research and development.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a novel approach to evaluating the reasoning abilities of LLMs by leveraging the well-understood phase transition behavior of 3-SAT problems. This allows for a more systematic and quantitative assessment of the models' logical reasoning capabilities, compared to more subjective or task-specific evaluations.
However, the paper acknowledges several limitations of this approach. First, 3-SAT problems may not fully capture the complexity of real-world reasoning tasks, which often involve a mix of logical, common-sense, and contextual reasoning. Additionally, the performance of LLMs on 3-SAT problems may be influenced by factors such as the specific training data and architecture used, which were not extensively explored in this study.
Further research is needed to better understand the factors that contribute to the reasoning abilities of LLMs, as well as to develop more comprehensive evaluation frameworks that can assess a wider range of reasoning skills. Ultimately, the insights gained from this study can contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models and advance the field of artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel approach to evaluating the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) by examining their performance on 3-SAT problems, which exhibit a well-understood phase transition behavior. The results suggest that while LLMs can handle basic logical reasoning, they struggle with more complex reasoning tasks, particularly near the phase transition point of the 3-SAT problems.
The findings provide valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of current LLMs in terms of their logical reasoning abilities, which can inform the ongoing efforts to improve these models and develop more robust reasoning capabilities. The researchers acknowledge the limitations of the 3-SAT approach and call for further research to better understand the factors that contribute to the reasoning abilities of LLMs and to develop more comprehensive evaluation frameworks for these models.
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 Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT
Rishi Hazra, Gabriele Venturato, Pedro Zuidberg Dos Martires, Luc De Raedt
Large Language Models (LLMs) are said to possess advanced reasoning abilities. However, some skepticism exists as recent works show how LLMs often bypass true reasoning using shortcuts. Current methods for assessing the reasoning abilities of LLMs typically rely on open-source benchmarks that may be overrepresented in LLM training data, potentially skewing performance. We instead provide a computational theory perspective of reasoning, using 3-SAT -- the prototypical NP-complete problem that lies at the core of logical reasoning and constraint satisfaction tasks. By examining the phase transitions in 3-SAT, we empirically characterize the reasoning abilities of LLMs and show how they vary with the inherent hardness of the problems. Our experimental evidence shows that LLMs cannot perform true reasoning, as is required for solving 3-SAT problems.
Read more8/15/2024
0
Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey
Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning, leading to a lively debate on whether these models possess reasoning capabilities similar to humans. However, despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain. This uncertainty partly stems from the predominant focus on task performance, measured through shallow accuracy metrics, rather than a thorough investigation of the models' reasoning behavior. This paper seeks to address this gap by providing a comprehensive review of studies that go beyond task accuracy, offering deeper insights into the models' reasoning processes. Furthermore, we survey prevalent methodologies to evaluate the reasoning behavior of LLMs, emphasizing current trends and efforts towards more nuanced reasoning analyses. Our review suggests that LLMs tend to rely on surface-level patterns and correlations in their training data, rather than on sophisticated reasoning abilities. Additionally, we identify the need for further research that delineates the key differences between human and LLM-based reasoning. Through this survey, we aim to shed light on the complex reasoning processes within LLMs.
Read more8/7/2024
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
Evaluating the Deductive Competence of Large Language Models
Spencer M. Seals, Valerie L. Shalin
The development of highly fluent large language models (LLMs) has prompted increased interest in assessing their reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. We investigate whether several LLMs can solve a classic type of deductive reasoning problem from the cognitive science literature. The tested LLMs have limited abilities to solve these problems in their conventional form. We performed follow up experiments to investigate if changes to the presentation format and content improve model performance. We do find performance differences between conditions; however, they do not improve overall performance. Moreover, we find that performance interacts with presentation format and content in unexpected ways that differ from human performance. Overall, our results suggest that LLMs have unique reasoning biases that are only partially predicted from human reasoning performance and the human-generated language corpora that informs them.
Read more4/16/2024