Chain of Thoughtlessness: An Analysis of CoT in Planning
2405.04776
2
0
🌿
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated with chain of thought prompting-a method of demonstrating solution procedures-with the intuition that it is possible to in-context teach an LLM an algorithm for solving the problem. This paper presents a case study of chain of thought on problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain, and examines the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs across two axes: generality of examples given in prompt, and complexity of problems queried with each prompt. While our problems are very simple, we only find meaningful performance improvements from chain of thought prompts when those prompts are exceedingly specific to their problem class, and that those improvements quickly deteriorate as the size n of the query-specified stack grows past the size of stacks shown in the examples. We also create scalable variants of three domains commonly studied in previous CoT papers and demonstrate the existence of similar failure modes. Our results hint that, contrary to previous claims in the literature, CoT's performance improvements do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures via demonstrations but depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Large language models (LLMs) often struggle to generalize their reasoning abilities beyond the specific examples they are trained on.
- Previous research has suggested that this issue can be mitigated by including "chains of thought" in the prompts - demonstrations of the step-by-step solution process.
- This paper examines the effectiveness of chain of thought prompts for solving problems in the Blocksworld domain, a classical planning problem.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. However, researchers have found that these models often struggle to apply their reasoning skills to problems that are different from the ones they were trained on.
The authors of this paper wondered if they could improve the generalization of LLMs by giving them examples of how to solve problems step-by-step. The idea is that by teaching the model an algorithm for solving a certain type of problem, it would be able to apply that same approach to other, similar problems.
To test this, the researchers looked at how two state-of-the-art LLMs performed on problems from the Blocksworld domain, a classic planning problem. They varied the level of generality in the examples provided to the models, as well as the complexity of the problems being solved.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a case study on the performance of two leading LLMs on problems from the Blocksworld domain, a classical planning problem. They examined the models' performance across two key axes:
-
Generality of examples given in the prompt: The researchers provided the LLMs with prompts that included examples ranging from very specific to more general.
-
Complexity of problems queried: The researchers tested the models on Blocksworld problems of varying complexity, as measured by the size of the stack being manipulated.
The researchers found that the chain of thought prompts only led to meaningful performance improvements when the examples were extremely specific to the problem class. However, these improvements quickly deteriorated as the complexity of the problems increased, even if they were still within the scope of the example problems.
These results suggest that the benefits of chain of thought prompting do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures through the demonstrations. Instead, the improvements seem to depend on carefully engineering highly problem-specific prompts.
Critical Analysis
The findings of this paper challenge previous claims in the literature about the ability of chain of thought prompts to help LLMs learn general problem-solving algorithms. The researchers show that the performance gains are quite limited and heavily dependent on the specificity of the examples provided.
This raises important questions about the scalability and generalizability of the chain of thought approach. As the authors point out, there is a sharp tradeoff between the potential performance improvements and the significant human effort required to generate high-quality, problem-specific examples with correct reasoning traces.
Additionally, the paper only examines a relatively simple domain (Blocksworld), so it would be valuable to see if the conclusions hold true for more complex, real-world problems. Further research is needed to fully understand the strengths and limitations of chain of thought prompting for large language models.
Conclusion
This paper provides a cautionary tale about the limitations of using chain of thought prompts to improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models. While the approach may lead to performance gains in some cases, the benefits appear to be highly dependent on the specificity of the examples provided and the complexity of the problems being solved.
The authors' findings suggest that the widely-held belief that chain of thought can teach LLMs general problem-solving algorithms may be an oversimplification. Instead, the technique seems to rely on carefully engineered, problem-specific prompts, which raises concerns about its scalability and broader applicability.
As the field of AI continues to grapple with the challenge of endowing language models with robust, generalizable reasoning abilities, this paper highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of different prompting strategies, including chain of thought, pattern-aware chain of thought, and general-purpose verification. Only through careful empirical investigation and critical analysis can we develop effective techniques to empower transformers to solve inherently complex reasoning problems.
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
🌿
Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting
Xuezhi Wang, Denny Zhou
0
0
In enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), prior research primarily focuses on specific prompting techniques such as few-shot or zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. These methods, while effective, often involve manually intensive prompt engineering. Our study takes a novel approach by asking: Can LLMs reason effectively without prompting? Our findings reveal that, intriguingly, CoT reasoning paths can be elicited from pre-trained LLMs by simply altering the textit{decoding} process. Rather than conventional greedy decoding, we investigate the top-$k$ alternative tokens, uncovering that CoT paths are frequently inherent in these sequences. This approach not only bypasses the confounders of prompting but also allows us to assess the LLMs' textit{intrinsic} reasoning abilities. Moreover, we observe that the presence of a CoT in the decoding path correlates with a higher confidence in the model's decoded answer. This confidence metric effectively differentiates between CoT and non-CoT paths. Extensive empirical studies on various reasoning benchmarks show that the proposed CoT-decoding effectively elicits reasoning capabilities from language models, which were previously obscured by standard greedy decoding.
5/27/2024
💬
Pattern-Aware Chain-of-Thought Prompting in Large Language Models
Yufeng Zhang, Xuepeng Wang, Lingxiang Wu, Jinqiao Wang
0
0
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting can guide language models to engage in complex multi-step reasoning. The quality of provided demonstrations significantly impacts the success of downstream inference tasks. While existing automated methods prioritize accuracy and semantics in these demonstrations, we show that the underlying reasoning patterns play a more crucial role in such tasks. In this paper, we propose Pattern-Aware CoT, a prompting method that considers the diversity of demonstration patterns. By incorporating patterns such as step length and reasoning process within intermediate steps, PA-CoT effectively mitigates the issue of bias induced by demonstrations and enables better generalization to diverse scenarios. We conduct experiments on nine reasoning benchmark tasks using two open-source LLMs. The results show that our method substantially enhances reasoning performance and exhibits robustness to errors. The code will be made publicly available.
4/24/2024
A Hopfieldian View-based Interpretation for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Lijie Hu, Liang Liu, Shu Yang, Xin Chen, Hongru Xiao, Mengdi Li, Pan Zhou, Muhammad Asif Ali, Di Wang
0
0
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) holds a significant place in augmenting the reasoning performance for large language models (LLMs). While some studies focus on improving CoT accuracy through methods like retrieval enhancement, yet a rigorous explanation for why CoT achieves such success remains unclear. In this paper, we analyze CoT methods under two different settings by asking the following questions: (1) For zero-shot CoT, why does prompting the model with let's think step by step significantly impact its outputs? (2) For few-shot CoT, why does providing examples before questioning the model could substantially improve its reasoning ability? To answer these questions, we conduct a top-down explainable analysis from the Hopfieldian view and propose a Read-and-Control approach for controlling the accuracy of CoT. Through extensive experiments on seven datasets for three different tasks, we demonstrate that our framework can decipher the inner workings of CoT, provide reasoning error localization, and control to come up with the correct reasoning path.
6/19/2024
💬
Boosting Language Models Reasoning with Chain-of-Knowledge Prompting
Jianing Wang, Qiushi Sun, Xiang Li, Ming Gao
0
0
Recently, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has delivered success on complex reasoning tasks, which aims at designing a simple prompt like ``Let's think step by step'' or multiple in-context exemplars with well-designed rationales to elicit Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate intermediate reasoning steps. However, the generated rationales often come with mistakes, making unfactual and unfaithful reasoning chains. To mitigate this brittleness, we propose a novel Chain-of-Knowledge (CoK) prompting, where we aim at eliciting LLMs to generate explicit pieces of knowledge evidence in the form of structure triple. This is inspired by our human behaviors, i.e., we can draw a mind map or knowledge map as the reasoning evidence in the brain before answering a complex question. Benefiting from CoK, we additionally introduce a F^2-Verification method to estimate the reliability of the reasoning chains in terms of factuality and faithfulness. For the unreliable response, the wrong evidence can be indicated to prompt the LLM to rethink. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method can further improve the performance of commonsense, factual, symbolic, and arithmetic reasoning tasks.
6/4/2024