Code Simulation Challenges for Large Language Models
2401.09074
0
0
Abstract
Many reasoning, planning, and problem-solving tasks share an intrinsic algorithmic nature: correctly simulating each step is a sufficient condition to solve them correctly. This work studies to what extent Large Language Models (LLMs) can simulate coding and algorithmic tasks to provide insights into general capabilities in such algorithmic reasoning tasks. We introduce benchmarks for straight-line programs, code that contains critical paths, and approximate and redundant instructions. We further assess the simulation capabilities of LLMs with sorting algorithms and nested loops and show that a routine's computational complexity directly affects an LLM's ability to simulate its execution. While the most powerful LLMs exhibit relatively strong simulation capabilities, the process is fragile, seems to rely heavily on pattern recognition, and is affected by memorisation. We propose a novel off-the-shelf prompting method, Chain of Simulation (CoSm), which instructs LLMs to simulate code execution line by line/follow the computation pattern of compilers. CoSm efficiently helps LLMs reduce memorisation and shallow pattern recognition while improving simulation performance. We consider the success of CoSm in code simulation to be inspirational for other general routine simulation reasoning tasks.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the challenges involved in simulating code execution using large language models (LLMs).
- The researchers investigate the ability of LLMs to understand and simulate the execution of pseudocode, which is a high-level description of an algorithm without the low-level implementation details.
- The paper also examines the symbolic reasoning capabilities of LLMs and their potential for generating fast, optimized code.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are artificial intelligence systems that have been trained on vast amounts of text data, allowing them to understand and generate human-like language. Researchers are exploring whether these powerful models can also be used for programming-related tasks, such as understanding and simulating the execution of code.
In this paper, the researchers focus on the challenge of simulating the execution of pseudocode, which is a high-level description of an algorithm without the low-level implementation details. This is an important step towards understanding the symbolic reasoning capabilities of LLMs and their potential for tasks like generating optimized code.
The researchers investigate how well LLMs can interpret and simulate the step-by-step execution of pseudocode, which could have applications in areas like automated program generation and evaluating the programming skills of language models. By understanding the limitations and capabilities of LLMs in this domain, researchers can work towards developing more powerful AI systems that can reason about and manipulate code in sophisticated ways.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents several experiments designed to assess the ability of LLMs to simulate the execution of pseudocode. The researchers use a variety of LLM architectures, including GPT-3, InstructGPT, and a custom model called "Performance-Aligned LLM" that is optimized for generating fast, efficient code.
In one experiment, the researchers provided LLMs with pseudocode descriptions of algorithms and asked them to simulate the step-by-step execution of the code, tracking the changing values of variables and the overall program state. The results showed that while LLMs can generally understand the high-level logic of the pseudocode, they struggle with accurately simulating the low-level details of execution, often making mistakes in tracking variable values and program control flow.
Another set of experiments explored the symbolic reasoning capabilities of LLMs, examining their ability to generate optimized code from high-level descriptions. The researchers found that while LLMs can generate functional code, they often produce suboptimal solutions that are slower or less efficient than handwritten code.
Overall, the paper highlights the challenges involved in using LLMs for code simulation and symbolic reasoning tasks. While these models show promise in understanding and manipulating code at a high level, they currently lack the detailed, systematic understanding required to accurately simulate the execution of complex algorithms or generate highly optimized code.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a well-designed set of experiments and a thorough analysis of the limitations of LLMs in the domain of code simulation and symbolic reasoning. The researchers acknowledge that while LLMs have made significant advances in natural language processing, they still struggle with tasks that require more formal, logical reasoning about code and algorithms.
One potential limitation of the research is the specific set of pseudocode examples used in the experiments. It's possible that the choice of algorithms or the way they were presented in pseudocode form influenced the performance of the LLMs. Further research could explore a wider range of pseudocode examples or investigate the impact of different pseudocode formats on the models' capabilities.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the potential reasons why LLMs struggle with these tasks. A more detailed exploration of the underlying cognitive mechanisms and architectural constraints of LLMs that contribute to these limitations could provide valuable insights for future model development and research.
Despite these caveats, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in the context of code-related tasks. By identifying these challenges, the researchers pave the way for further advancements in developing AI systems that can reason about and manipulate code in more sophisticated ways.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the ongoing challenges in using large language models (LLMs) for code simulation and symbolic reasoning tasks. While LLMs have demonstrated impressive natural language processing capabilities, they currently struggle with accurately simulating the low-level execution of algorithms and generating highly optimized code.
The researchers' experiments reveal that LLMs can generally understand the high-level logic of pseudocode, but they often make mistakes in tracking variable values and program control flow. Additionally, while LLMs can generate functional code, they tend to produce suboptimal solutions that are slower or less efficient than handwritten code.
These findings underscore the need for further research and development to enhance the symbolic reasoning capabilities of LLMs, particularly in the context of programming-related tasks. By addressing these challenges, researchers can work towards creating more powerful AI systems that can effectively understand, manipulate, and generate code in ways that are useful for a wide range of applications, from automated program generation to evaluating the programming skills of language 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
💬
Language Models as Compilers: Simulating Pseudocode Execution Improves Algorithmic Reasoning in Language Models
Hyungjoo Chae, Yeonghyeon Kim, Seungone Kim, Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Beong-woo Kwak, Moohyeon Kim, Seonghwan Kim, Taeyoon Kwon, Jiwan Chung, Youngjae Yu, Jinyoung Yeo
0
0
Algorithmic reasoning refers to the ability to understand the complex patterns behind the problem and decompose them into a sequence of reasoning steps towards the solution. Such nature of algorithmic reasoning makes it a challenge for large language models (LLMs), even though they have demonstrated promising performance in other reasoning tasks. Within this context, some recent studies use programming languages (e.g., Python) to express the necessary logic for solving a given instance/question (e.g., Program-of-Thought) as inspired by their strict and precise syntaxes. However, it is non-trivial to write an executable code that expresses the correct logic on the fly within a single inference call. Also, the code generated specifically for an instance cannot be reused for others, even if they are from the same task and might require identical logic to solve. This paper presents Think-and-Execute, a novel framework that decomposes the reasoning process of language models into two steps. (1) In Think, we discover a task-level logic that is shared across all instances for solving a given task and then express the logic with pseudocode; (2) In Execute, we further tailor the generated pseudocode to each instance and simulate the execution of the code. With extensive experiments on seven algorithmic reasoning tasks, we demonstrate the effectiveness of Think-and-Execute. Our approach better improves LMs' reasoning compared to several strong baselines performing instance-specific reasoning (e.g., CoT and PoT), suggesting the helpfulness of discovering task-level logic. Also, we show that compared to natural language, pseudocode can better guide the reasoning of LMs, even though they are trained to follow natural language instructions.
4/4/2024
💬
Investigating Symbolic Capabilities of Large Language Models
Neisarg Dave, Daniel Kifer, C. Lee Giles, Ankur Mali
0
0
Prompting techniques have significantly enhanced the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various complex tasks, including reasoning, planning, and solving math word problems. However, most research has predominantly focused on language-based reasoning and word problems, often overlooking the potential of LLMs in handling symbol-based calculations and reasoning. This study aims to bridge this gap by rigorously evaluating LLMs on a series of symbolic tasks, such as addition, multiplication, modulus arithmetic, numerical precision, and symbolic counting. Our analysis encompasses eight LLMs, including four enterprise-grade and four open-source models, of which three have been pre-trained on mathematical tasks. The assessment framework is anchored in Chomsky's Hierarchy, providing a robust measure of the computational abilities of these models. The evaluation employs minimally explained prompts alongside the zero-shot Chain of Thoughts technique, allowing models to navigate the solution process autonomously. The findings reveal a significant decline in LLMs' performance on context-free and context-sensitive symbolic tasks as the complexity, represented by the number of symbols, increases. Notably, even the fine-tuned GPT3.5 exhibits only marginal improvements, mirroring the performance trends observed in other models. Across the board, all models demonstrated a limited generalization ability on these symbol-intensive tasks. This research underscores LLMs' challenges with increasing symbolic complexity and highlights the need for specialized training, memory and architectural adjustments to enhance their proficiency in symbol-based reasoning tasks.
5/24/2024
➖
Performance-Aligned LLMs for Generating Fast Code
Daniel Nichols, Pranav Polasam, Harshitha Menon, Aniruddha Marathe, Todd Gamblin, Abhinav Bhatele
0
0
Optimizing scientific software is a difficult task because codebases are often large and complex, and performance can depend upon several factors including the algorithm, its implementation, and hardware among others. Causes of poor performance can originate from disparate sources and be difficult to diagnose. Recent years have seen a multitude of work that use large language models (LLMs) to assist in software development tasks. However, these tools are trained to model the distribution of code as text, and are not specifically designed to understand performance aspects of code. In this work, we introduce a reinforcement learning based methodology to align the outputs of code LLMs with performance. This allows us to build upon the current code modeling capabilities of LLMs and extend them to generate better performing code. We demonstrate that our fine-tuned model improves the expected speedup of generated code over base models for a set of benchmark tasks from 0.9 to 1.6 for serial code and 1.9 to 4.5 for OpenMP code.
4/30/2024
Learning to Reason via Program Generation, Emulation, and Search
Nathaniel Weir, Muhammad Khalifa, Linlu Qiu, Orion Weller, Peter Clark
0
0
Program synthesis with language models (LMs) has unlocked a large set of reasoning abilities; code-tuned LMs have proven adept at generating programs that solve a wide variety of algorithmic symbolic manipulation tasks (e.g. word concatenation). However, not all reasoning tasks are easily expressible as code, e.g. tasks involving commonsense reasoning, moral decision-making, and sarcasm understanding. Our goal is to extend an LM's program synthesis skills to such tasks and evaluate the results via pseudo-programs, namely Python programs where some leaf function calls are left undefined. To that end, we propose, Code Generation and Emulated EXecution (CoGEX). CoGEX works by (1) training LMs to generate their own pseudo-programs, (2) teaching them to emulate their generated program's execution, including those leaf functions, allowing the LM's knowledge to fill in the execution gaps; and (3) using them to search over many programs to find an optimal one. To adapt the CoGEX model to a new task, we introduce a method for performing program search to find a single program whose pseudo-execution yields optimal performance when applied to all the instances of a given dataset. We show that our approach yields large improvements compared to standard in-context learning approaches on a battery of tasks, both algorithmic and soft reasoning. This result thus demonstrates that code synthesis can be applied to a much broader class of problems than previously considered. Our released dataset, fine-tuned models, and implementation can be found at url{https://github.com/nweir127/CoGEX}.
5/30/2024