Cleared for Takeoff? Compositional & Conditional Reasoning may be the Achilles Heel to (Flight-Booking) Language Agents
2404.04237
0
0
Abstract
The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) has seen them excel and frequently surpass human performance on standard benchmarks. This has enabled many downstream applications, such as LLM agents, to rely on their sophisticated reasoning to navigate complex task requirements. However, LLMs are known to unexpectedly falter in simple tasks and under seemingly straightforward circumstances - underscoring the need for better and more diverse evaluation setups to measure their true capabilities. To this end, we choose to study compositional and conditional reasoning, two cornerstones of human cognition, and introduce GroundCocoa - a lexically diverse benchmark connecting these reasoning skills to the real-world problem of flight booking. Our task involves aligning detailed user preferences with available flight options presented in a multiple-choice format. Results indicate a significant disparity in performance among current state-of-the-art LLMs with even the best performing model, GPT-4 Turbo, not exceeding 67% accuracy despite advanced prompting techniques.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines the ability of large language models (LLMs) to perform compositional and conditional reasoning, which are critical skills for flight-booking agents and other real-world applications.
- The researchers use a custom-designed task to test the reasoning capabilities of several LLMs, including GPT-3, PaLM, and Chinchilla.
- The results suggest that current LLMs struggle with these types of reasoning tasks, highlighting a potential weakness that could limit their usefulness in certain applications.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how well large language models (LLMs) - the powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text - can do something called "compositional and conditional reasoning." This is an important skill for things like booking flights, where you need to be able to understand and combine different pieces of information, and make decisions based on specific conditions.
The researchers created a custom task to test the reasoning abilities of several popular LLMs, like GPT-3, PaLM, and Chinchilla. The results suggest that these LLMs struggle with this type of reasoning, which could be a problem for using them in real-world applications that require this kind of thinking, like booking flights.
So while LLMs are incredibly powerful in many ways, the paper highlights a potential weakness - they may not be as good at the kind of logical, analytical reasoning that is needed for certain tasks. This could limit their usefulness in some areas, and suggests that more work is needed to enhance the reasoning abilities of large language models.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the compositional and conditional reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using a custom-designed task. The researchers tested several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3, PaLM, and Chinchilla, on their ability to reason about complex scenarios involving flights, dates, and other contextual information.
The task presents the models with a series of statements about flight options, dates, and other constraints, and asks them to determine which flights are viable based on the given information. This requires the models to understand how different pieces of information relate to each other and make logical inferences to identify the correct flights.
The results show that while the LLMs perform well on standard language understanding and generation benchmarks, they struggle significantly on the reasoning task. Even the most capable models like PaLM and Chinchilla fail to consistently identify the correct flights, highlighting a potential blind spot in their reasoning abilities.
The paper suggests that this limitation could pose challenges for using LLMs in real-world applications, such as flight booking agents, that require robust reasoning and decision-making skills. The findings underscore the need for continued research and development to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models and unlock their full potential for complex, real-world tasks.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution by identifying a potential weakness in the reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art large language models. The authors have designed a thoughtful and well-crafted task that captures the nuances of compositional and conditional reasoning, which are crucial for many practical applications.
One potential limitation of the study is the use of a single, custom-designed task to assess the models' reasoning capabilities. While this task is well-suited for the research question, it may not fully capture the breadth of reasoning skills required in real-world scenarios. It would be beneficial to expand the evaluation to include a wider range of reasoning tasks and scenarios to better understand the scope and limitations of the models' capabilities.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the underlying reasons for the models' struggles on the reasoning task. Further investigation into the specific areas of weakness, such as understanding of logical operations, contextual reasoning, or knowledge representation, could provide valuable insights to guide future research and model development.
Despite these minor caveats, the paper's findings are significant and raise important questions about the current state of large language models' reasoning abilities. The researchers have highlighted a potential Achilles heel that deserves further attention from the AI research community. Addressing the limitations identified in this study could lead to substantial improvements in the usefulness and reliability of language models for real-world applications.
Conclusion
The paper presents a thought-provoking examination of the compositional and conditional reasoning capabilities of large language models, which are critical for many practical applications, such as flight-booking agents. The results suggest that current state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3, PaLM, and Chinchilla, struggle with these types of reasoning tasks, revealing a potential weakness that could limit their usefulness in certain real-world scenarios.
The findings underscore the need for continued research and development to enhance the reasoning abilities of large language models, as well as the importance of carefully evaluating the strengths and limitations of these powerful AI systems. By addressing the challenges identified in this study, the AI research community can work towards developing more robust and capable language models that can reliably handle the complex reasoning required for a wide range of practical applications.
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 Truly Zero-shot Compositional Visual Reasoning with LLMs as Programmers
Aleksandar Stani'c, Sergi Caelles, Michael Tschannen
0
0
Visual reasoning is dominated by end-to-end neural networks scaled to billions of model parameters and training examples. However, even the largest models struggle with compositional reasoning, generalization, fine-grained spatial and temporal reasoning, and counting. Visual reasoning with large language models (LLMs) as controllers can, in principle, address these limitations by decomposing the task and solving subtasks by orchestrating a set of (visual) tools. Recently, these models achieved great performance on tasks such as compositional visual question answering, visual grounding, and video temporal reasoning. Nevertheless, in their current form, these models heavily rely on human engineering of in-context examples in the prompt, which are often dataset- and task-specific and require significant labor by highly skilled programmers. In this work, we present a framework that mitigates these issues by introducing spatially and temporally abstract routines and by leveraging a small number of labeled examples to automatically generate in-context examples, thereby avoiding human-created in-context examples. On a number of visual reasoning tasks, we show that our framework leads to consistent gains in performance, makes LLMs as controllers setup more robust, and removes the need for human engineering of in-context examples.
5/16/2024
💬
Exploring the Compositional Deficiency of Large Language Models in Mathematical Reasoning
Jun Zhao, Jingqi Tong, Yurong Mou, Ming Zhang, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
0
0
Human cognition exhibits systematic compositionality, the algebraic ability to generate infinite novel combinations from finite learned components, which is the key to understanding and reasoning about complex logic. In this work, we investigate the compositionality of large language models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning. Specifically, we construct a new dataset textsc{MathTrap}footnotemark[3] by introducing carefully designed logical traps into the problem descriptions of MATH and GSM8k. Since problems with logical flaws are quite rare in the real world, these represent ``unseen'' cases to LLMs. Solving these requires the models to systematically compose (1) the mathematical knowledge involved in the original problems with (2) knowledge related to the introduced traps. Our experiments show that while LLMs possess both components of requisite knowledge, they do not textbf{spontaneously} combine them to handle these novel cases. We explore several methods to mitigate this deficiency, such as natural language prompts, few-shot demonstrations, and fine-tuning. We find that LLMs' performance can be textbf{passively} improved through the above external intervention. Overall, systematic compositionality remains an open challenge for large language models.
5/14/2024
💬
Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models
Yash Saxena, Sarthak Chopra, Arunendra Mani Tripathi
0
0
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.
4/26/2024
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
0
0
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.
6/7/2024