Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness as Disguised Accuracy
2402.14897
2
0
Abstract
Understanding the extent to which Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generations align with a large language model's (LLM) internal computations is critical for deciding whether to trust an LLM's output. As a proxy for CoT faithfulness, Lanham et al. (2023) propose a metric that measures a model's dependence on its CoT for producing an answer. Within a single family of proprietary models, they find that LLMs exhibit a scaling-then-inverse-scaling relationship between model size and their measure of faithfulness, and that a 13 billion parameter model exhibits increased faithfulness compared to models ranging from 810 million to 175 billion parameters in size. We evaluate whether these results generalize as a property of all LLMs. We replicate the experimental setup in their section focused on scaling experiments with three different families of models and, under specific conditions, successfully reproduce the scaling trends for CoT faithfulness they report. However, after normalizing the metric to account for a model's bias toward certain answer choices, unfaithfulness drops significantly for smaller less-capable models. This normalized faithfulness metric is also strongly correlated ($R^2$=0.74) with accuracy, raising doubts about its validity for evaluating faithfulness.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the phenomenon of "chain-of-thought unfaithfulness" in large language models, where the models produce reasoning that appears accurate but is actually disconnected from their true understanding.
- The authors propose a new technique called "chain-of-thought faithfulness testing" to evaluate the alignment between the models' reasoning outputs and their underlying knowledge.
- The paper also discusses related work on measuring the faithfulness and self-consistency of language models, as well as the inherent challenges in this area.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models, like those used in chatbots and virtual assistants, are incredibly capable at generating human-like text. However, a previous study has shown that these models can sometimes produce "chain-of-thought" reasoning that appears correct but is actually disconnected from their true understanding.
Imagine a student who can recite facts and formulas but doesn't really understand the underlying concepts. They may be able to solve math problems step-by-step, but their reasoning is not grounded in a deeper comprehension of the material. Similarly, large language models can sometimes generate convincing-sounding explanations without truly grasping the meaning behind them.
This paper introduces a new approach called "chain-of-thought faithfulness testing" to better evaluate the alignment between a model's reasoning outputs and its actual knowledge. The authors draw inspiration from related work on measuring the faithfulness and self-consistency of language models, as well as the inherent challenges in this area.
By developing more rigorous testing methods, the researchers aim to gain a better understanding of when and why large language models exhibit "unfaithful" reasoning, and how to potentially address this issue. This is an important step in ensuring that these powerful AI systems are truly aligned with human knowledge and values, rather than just producing plausible-sounding output.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new technique called "chain-of-thought faithfulness testing" to evaluate the alignment between the reasoning outputs of large language models and their underlying knowledge. This builds on previous research that has identified the phenomenon of "chain-of-thought unfaithfulness," where models can generate logically coherent but factually inaccurate reasoning.
The authors draw inspiration from related work on measuring the faithfulness and self-consistency of language models, as well as the inherent challenges in this area. They propose using a combination of automated and human-evaluated tests to assess the degree to which a model's reasoning aligns with its true understanding.
The paper also discusses the direct evaluation of chain-of-thought reasoning and the potential for dissociation between faithful and unfaithful reasoning in large language models. These insights help inform the development of the proposed faithfulness testing approach.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the potential disconnect between the reasoning outputs of large language models and their actual understanding. While the authors' proposed "chain-of-thought faithfulness testing" approach is a valuable contribution, it also highlights the inherent challenges in accurately measuring the faithfulness of these models.
One potential limitation is the subjective nature of the human-evaluated tests, which may be influenced by individual biases and interpretations. Additionally, the paper does not address the potential for models to adapt their reasoning in response to specific testing scenarios, which could undermine the validity of the results.
Furthermore, the paper does not delve into the underlying causes of "chain-of-thought unfaithfulness," nor does it propose concrete solutions to address this issue. Exploring the cognitive and architectural factors that lead to this phenomenon could be an important area for future research.
Overall, this paper raises important questions about the need for more rigorous and transparent evaluation of large language models, to ensure that their outputs are truly aligned with human knowledge and values. As these models become more ubiquitous, it is crucial to develop robust testing methodologies that can reliably assess their faithfulness and self-consistency.
Conclusion
This paper explores the concept of "chain-of-thought unfaithfulness" in large language models, where the models' reasoning outputs appear accurate but are actually disconnected from their true understanding. The authors introduce a new technique called "chain-of-thought faithfulness testing" to better evaluate the alignment between the models' reasoning and their underlying knowledge.
The paper draws inspiration from related work on measuring the faithfulness and self-consistency of language models, as well as the inherent challenges in this area. By developing more rigorous testing methods, the researchers aim to gain a better understanding of when and why large language models exhibit "unfaithful" reasoning, and how to potentially address this issue.
Ensuring the faithfulness of large language models is a crucial step in aligning these powerful AI systems with human knowledge and values, rather than just producing plausible-sounding output. The insights and approaches presented in this paper represent an important contribution to this ongoing effort.
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
Towards Faithful Chain-of-Thought: Large Language Models are Bridging Reasoners
Jiachun Li, Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Jun Zhao
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) suffer from serious unfaithful chain-of-thought (CoT) issues. Previous work attempts to measure and explain it but lacks in-depth analysis within CoTs and does not consider the interactions among all reasoning components jointly. In this paper, we first study the CoT faithfulness issue at the granularity of CoT steps, identify two reasoning paradigms: centralized reasoning and distributed reasoning, and find their relationship with faithfulness. Subsequently, we conduct a joint analysis of the causal relevance among the context, CoT, and answer during reasoning. The result proves that, when the LLM predicts answers, it can recall correct information missing in the CoT from the context, leading to unfaithfulness issues. Finally, we propose the inferential bridging method to mitigate this issue, in which we use the attribution method to recall information as hints for CoT generation and filter out noisy CoTs based on their semantic consistency and attribution scores. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach effectively alleviates the unfaithful CoT problem.
5/30/2024
On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models
Sree Harsha Tanneru, Dan Ley, Chirag Agarwal, Himabindu Lakkaraju
0
0
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in real-world applications in critical domains such as healthcare, it is important to ensure that the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning generated by these models faithfully captures their underlying behavior. While LLMs are known to generate CoT reasoning that is appealing to humans, prior studies have shown that these explanations do not accurately reflect the actual behavior of the underlying LLMs. In this work, we explore the promise of three broad approaches commonly employed to steer the behavior of LLMs to enhance the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs: in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing. Specifically, we introduce novel strategies for in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing aimed at improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning. We then carry out extensive empirical analyses with multiple benchmark datasets to explore the promise of these strategies. Our analyses indicate that these strategies offer limited success in improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning, with only slight performance enhancements in controlled scenarios. Activation editing demonstrated minimal success, while fine-tuning and in-context learning achieved marginal improvements that failed to generalize across diverse reasoning and truthful question-answering benchmarks. In summary, our work underscores the inherent difficulty in eliciting faithful CoT reasoning from LLMs, suggesting that the current array of approaches may not be sufficient to address this complex challenge.
6/18/2024
🌿
On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanations
Letitia Parcalabescu, Anette Frank
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) can explain their predictions through post-hoc or Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations. But an LLM could make up reasonably sounding explanations that are unfaithful to its underlying reasoning. Recent work has designed tests that aim to judge the faithfulness of post-hoc or CoT explanations. In this work we argue that these faithfulness tests do not measure faithfulness to the models' inner workings -- but rather their self-consistency at output level. Our contributions are three-fold: i) We clarify the status of faithfulness tests in view of model explainability, characterising them as self-consistency tests instead. This assessment we underline by ii) constructing a Comparative Consistency Bank for self-consistency tests that for the first time compares existing tests on a common suite of 11 open LLMs and 5 tasks -- including iii) our new self-consistency measure CC-SHAP. CC-SHAP is a fine-grained measure (not a test) of LLM self-consistency. It compares how a model's input contributes to the predicted answer and to generating the explanation. Our fine-grained CC-SHAP metric allows us iii) to compare LLM behaviour when making predictions and to analyse the effect of other consistency tests at a deeper level, which takes us one step further towards measuring faithfulness by bringing us closer to the internals of the model than strictly surface output-oriented tests. Our code is available at url{https://github.com/Heidelberg-NLP/CC-SHAP}
6/4/2024
Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning in LLMs
Evelyn Yee, Alice Li, Chenyu Tang, Yeon Ho Jung, Ramamohan Paturi, Leon Bergen
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance in downstream tasks when they generate Chain of Thought reasoning text before producing an answer. Our research investigates how LLMs recover from errors in Chain of Thought, reaching the correct final answer despite mistakes in the reasoning text. Through analysis of these error recovery behaviors, we find evidence for unfaithfulness in Chain of Thought, but we also identify many clear examples of faithful error recovery behaviors. We identify factors that shift LLM recovery behavior: LLMs recover more frequently from obvious errors and in contexts that provide more evidence for the correct answer. However, unfaithful recoveries show the opposite behavior, occurring more frequently for more difficult error positions. Our results indicate that there are distinct mechanisms driving faithful and unfaithful error recoveries. Our results challenge the view that LLM reasoning is a uniform, coherent process.
5/27/2024