Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning
1
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper compares the inferential strategies of humans and large language models (LLMs) in deductive reasoning tasks.
- The researchers explored how humans and LLMs approach and solve propositional logic problems, aiming to understand the similarities and differences in their reasoning processes.
- The study provides insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying human and machine reasoning, which could have implications for AI models' deductive competence, integrated learning approaches, and the comparative evaluation of reasoning capabilities between humans and LLMs.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines how humans and advanced AI language models, known as large language models (LLMs), approach and solve logical reasoning problems. Logical reasoning, which involves drawing conclusions from given information, is a fundamental cognitive skill for both humans and AI systems.
The researchers wanted to understand the similarities and differences in how humans and LLMs tackle these types of problems. They designed experiments where both humans and LLMs were presented with propositional logic problems and asked to identify the correct conclusions. By analyzing the strategies and thought processes used by humans and LLMs, the researchers gained insights into the underlying cognitive mechanisms that drive logical reasoning in both cases.
These insights could help evaluate the deductive competence of LLMs, inform the development of integrated learning approaches that combine different reasoning strategies, and provide a more comprehensive comparison of the reasoning capabilities of humans and LLMs. This could ultimately lead to a better understanding of how to evaluate the reasoning behavior of LLMs and their potential strengths and limitations in tasks that require logical thinking.
Technical Explanation
The researchers designed experiments to compare the inferential strategies used by humans and LLMs when solving propositional logic problems. Participants, including both human subjects and LLMs, were presented with a series of logical statements and asked to identify the correct conclusions.
The study analyzed the reasoning processes employed by humans and LLMs, focusing on factors such as the time taken to reach a conclusion, the types of errors made, and the cognitive strategies used. The researchers also explored how the performance of LLMs was affected by the complexity of the logical problems and the format in which the information was presented.
The findings suggest that humans and LLMs may rely on different cognitive mechanisms when engaging in deductive reasoning. While humans tend to use more intuitive, heuristic-based approaches, LLMs appear to employ more systematic, rule-based strategies. These differences highlight the potential complementarity between human and machine reasoning, which could inform the development of integrated learning approaches that leverage the strengths of both.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the comparative reasoning strategies of humans and LLMs, but it also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For instance, the study focused on relatively simple propositional logic problems, and it remains to be seen how the findings might extend to more complex logical reasoning tasks or different problem domains.
Additionally, the researchers note that the performance of LLMs may be influenced by factors such as the specific training data and architectural choices used in their development. As a result, the observed differences between human and LLM reasoning may not necessarily generalize to all LLMs or future advancements in language model technology.
It would be interesting to further explore the reasoning behavior of LLMs and investigate how their strategies might evolve as the models become more sophisticated. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the cognitive mechanisms underlying human deductive reasoning and how they might be systematically compared to language models.
Conclusion
This study provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to understand the deductive competence of large language models and their reasoning capabilities compared to humans. The findings suggest that humans and LLMs may employ different strategies when solving logical problems, with implications for the development of integrated learning approaches and the comparative evaluation of reasoning abilities between the two. As research in this area continues to evolve, it will be important to further explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying human and machine reasoning, ultimately leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of current language models in logical thinking and problem-solving.
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
1
Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning
Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like $textit{supposition following}$ or $textit{chain construction}$. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model's accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.
Read more6/4/2024
💬
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
0
An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Learning in Large Language Models
Emmy Liu, Graham Neubig, Jacob Andreas
Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.
Read more8/30/2024
💬
0
A Systematic Comparison of Syllogistic Reasoning in Humans and Language Models
Tiwalayo Eisape, MH Tessler, Ishita Dasgupta, Fei Sha, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Tal Linzen
A central component of rational behavior is logical inference: the process of determining which conclusions follow from a set of premises. Psychologists have documented several ways in which humans' inferences deviate from the rules of logic. Do language models, which are trained on text generated by humans, replicate such human biases, or are they able to overcome them? Focusing on the case of syllogisms -- inferences from two simple premises -- we show that, within the PaLM2 family of transformer language models, larger models are more logical than smaller ones, and also more logical than humans. At the same time, even the largest models make systematic errors, some of which mirror human reasoning biases: they show sensitivity to the (irrelevant) ordering of the variables in the syllogism, and draw confident but incorrect inferences from particular syllogisms (syllogistic fallacies). Overall, we find that language models often mimic the human biases included in their training data, but are able to overcome them in some cases.
Read more4/12/2024