Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning in LLMs
2405.15092
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates the dissociation between faithful and unfaithful reasoning in large language models (LLMs).
- Faithful reasoning refers to logical, grounded, and explainable thought processes, while unfaithful reasoning involves deceptive or semantically flawed reasoning.
- The authors explore how LLMs can exhibit both faithful and unfaithful reasoning, and seek to understand the factors that influence this dissociation.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines how large AI language models can engage in both trustworthy, logical reasoning as well as deceptive or flawed reasoning. Faithful reasoning refers to when the model follows sound logical principles and provides clear explanations for its thought process. Unfaithful reasoning happens when the model produces responses that are misleading or don't make sense, even if they may seem plausible on the surface.
The researchers want to understand what causes this split - why do these powerful language models sometimes reason faithfully and other times reason in an unfaithful or deceptive way? They explore different factors that might influence this, such as the model's training data, prompts given to it, and the specific task or context. By better understanding the conditions that lead to faithful versus unfaithful reasoning, the goal is to find ways to encourage more consistently trustworthy and explainable outputs from these large language models.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the "dissociation of faithful and unfaithful reasoning" in large language models (LLMs). Faithful reasoning refers to logical, grounded, and explainable thought processes, while unfaithful reasoning involves deceptive or semantically flawed reasoning that can seem plausible on the surface.
The authors conduct a series of experiments to better understand this dissociation. They evaluate LLM performance on a range of reasoning tasks designed to elicit both faithful and unfaithful responses. The tasks include multi-step reasoning problems, knowledge-intensive questions, and open-ended prompts. The authors analyze the LLM outputs to identify factors that influence whether the model reasons faithfully or unfaithfully.
The findings suggest that LLM reasoning can be influenced by factors like the prompting framework, the nature of the task, and the model's training data. For example, open-ended prompts tend to trigger more unfaithful reasoning, while structured reasoning tasks are more likely to result in faithful responses. The authors also find evidence of "deceptive semantic shortcuts" where LLMs produce convincing-sounding but logically flawed responses.
Overall, the paper provides important insights into the complex relationship between faithful and unfaithful reasoning in large language models. Understanding these dynamics can help inform the development of approaches to encourage more consistent, trustworthy, and explainable reasoning from these powerful AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper's exploration of the dissociation between faithful and unfaithful reasoning in LLMs is a valuable contribution to the field. By systematically investigating the factors that influence this split, the authors provide important insights that can inform ongoing efforts to develop more reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
One potential limitation of the study is the reliance on a relatively narrow set of evaluation tasks. While the authors attempt to cover a range of reasoning scenarios, there may be other contexts or prompts that could elicit different patterns of faithful and unfaithful reasoning. Expanding the scope of the experiments could yield additional insights.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying mechanisms that lead to unfaithful reasoning in LLMs. Further research is needed to unpack the specific cognitive biases, knowledge gaps, or architectural flaws that can cause these models to produce deceptive or logically unsound outputs, even when they are capable of faithful reasoning in other contexts.
Overall, this paper represents an important step forward in understanding the complex and multifaceted nature of reasoning in large language models. By illuminating the dissociation between faithful and unfaithful reasoning, it sets the stage for the development of more robust and trustworthy AI systems that can reliably engage in logical, grounded, and explainable thought processes.
Conclusion
This research paper sheds light on the dissociation between faithful and unfaithful reasoning in large language models (LLMs). The authors demonstrate that these powerful AI systems are capable of both logical, grounded reasoning as well as deceptive or semantically flawed reasoning, and they explore the factors that influence this split.
By better understanding the conditions that lead to faithful versus unfaithful reasoning, the findings from this work can inform the development of techniques and approaches to encourage more consistently trustworthy and explainable outputs from LLMs. This is a crucial step towards building AI systems that can be reliably deployed in high-stakes applications where transparent and accountable reasoning is of paramount importance.
Overall, this paper represents an important contribution to the ongoing effort to create AI systems that can engage in logically consistent, self-explanatory, and verifiable reasoning, ultimately enhancing the safety and reliability of these powerful technologies as they become increasingly integrated into our lives.
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
Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness as Disguised Accuracy
Oliver Bentham, Nathan Stringham, Ana Marasovi'c
0
0
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.
6/24/2024
💬
FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models
Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Chia-Yuan Chang, Ruixiang Tang, Shaochen Zhong, Fan Yang, Mengnan Du, Xuanting Cai, Xia Hu
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become proficient in addressing complex tasks by leveraging their extensive internal knowledge and reasoning capabilities. However, the black-box nature of these models complicates the task of explaining their decision-making processes. While recent advancements demonstrate the potential of leveraging LLMs to self-explain their predictions through natural language (NL) explanations, their explanations may not accurately reflect the LLMs' decision-making process due to a lack of fidelity optimization on the derived explanations. Measuring the fidelity of NL explanations is a challenging issue, as it is difficult to manipulate the input context to mask the semantics of these explanations. To this end, we introduce FaithLM to explain the decision of LLMs with NL explanations. Specifically, FaithLM designs a method for evaluating the fidelity of NL explanations by incorporating the contrary explanations to the query process. Moreover, FaithLM conducts an iterative process to improve the fidelity of derived explanations. Experiment results on three datasets from multiple domains demonstrate that FaithLM can significantly improve the fidelity of derived explanations, which also provides a better alignment with the ground-truth explanations.
6/27/2024