Distilling Algorithmic Reasoning from LLMs via Explaining Solution Programs
2404.08148
0
0
Abstract
Distilling explicit chain-of-thought reasoning paths has emerged as an effective method for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) across various tasks. However, when tackling complex tasks that pose significant challenges for state-of-the-art models, this technique often struggles to produce effective chains of thought that lead to correct answers. In this work, we propose a novel approach to distill reasoning abilities from LLMs by leveraging their capacity to explain solutions. We apply our method to solving competitive-level programming challenges. More specifically, we employ an LLM to generate explanations for a set of pairs, then use pairs to fine-tune a smaller language model, which we refer to as the Reasoner, to learn algorithmic reasoning that can generate how-to-solve hints for unseen problems. Our experiments demonstrate that learning from explanations enables the Reasoner to more effectively guide program implementation by a Coder, resulting in higher solve rates than strong chain-of-thought baselines on competitive-level programming problems. It also outperforms models that learn directly from pairs. We curated an additional test set in the CodeContests format, which includes 246 more recent problems posted after the models' knowledge cutoff.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This research paper explores a novel approach to distilling algorithmic reasoning from large language models (LLMs) by explaining their solution programs.
- The key idea is to leverage LLMs' ability to solve algorithmic problems and then extract the underlying reasoning by having the model explain its own solution steps.
- This approach aims to gain insights into the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of LLMs, which could have important implications for tasks like program synthesis and software engineering.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 have shown impressive abilities to solve a wide range of problems, including algorithmic and programming tasks. However, it's often unclear how these models arrive at their solutions - the reasoning behind their outputs is not always transparent.
This research paper proposes a new way to peek under the hood of LLMs and understand their algorithmic reasoning. The key idea is to ask the model to not just solve a problem, but to also explain its own solution step-by-step. By having the model describe its problem-solving process, the researchers hope to extract insights into the model's underlying reasoning abilities.
For example, if an LLM is asked to write a program that sorts a list of numbers, the researchers would have the model not only provide the final sorted list, but also walk through the specific steps it took to arrive at that solution. This "explanation" of the model's own solution could reveal a lot about how it is tackling algorithmic challenges.
The potential benefits of this approach are twofold. First, it could lead to a better understanding of the inner workings of LLMs and their problem-solving capabilities. This knowledge could then inform the development of more capable and transparent AI systems. Second, the ability to extract step-by-step explanations from LLMs could have direct applications in fields like program synthesis and software engineering, where being able to understand and reason about code is crucial.
Overall, this research represents an intriguing attempt to peer into the "black box" of large language models and uncover the algorithmic reasoning that underpins their impressive problem-solving abilities.
Technical Explanation
The core of this research is a novel framework for distilling algorithmic reasoning from LLMs by asking them to explain their own solution programs. The process involves three main steps:
-
Problem Specification: The model is given an algorithmic problem to solve, such as sorting a list or finding the shortest path in a graph.
-
Solution Generation: The LLM is then tasked with generating a program or step-by-step solution to the specified problem. This taps into the model's ability to perform algorithmic reasoning and problem-solving.
-
Solution Explanation: Finally, the model is prompted to explain its own solution program, breaking down the key steps and reasoning behind each part of the solution. This explanation is the key output that the researchers use to analyze the model's algorithmic reasoning.
The researchers evaluate this framework using several LLMs, including GPT-3, on a suite of algorithmic programming problems. They find that the models are generally able to provide coherent explanations of their solutions, revealing insights into their underlying reasoning processes.
For example, the models may describe how they approached a sorting problem by first identifying the minimum element, then iteratively building up the sorted list. Or for a graph problem, the model may explain how it used a breadth-first search algorithm to systematically explore the graph and find the shortest path.
By analyzing these explanations, the researchers are able to gain a better understanding of the models' algorithmic capabilities and limitations. This could inform the development of more transparent and capable AI systems, as well as have applications in areas like program synthesis and software engineering.
Critical Analysis
The researchers make a compelling case for the value of their approach in understanding the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By having the models explain their own solutions, the technique goes beyond simply measuring performance on problem-solving tasks and provides a window into the underlying reasoning process.
However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:
-
Faithfulness of Explanations: While the models are able to provide coherent explanations, it's unclear how faithfully these explanations capture the actual reasoning used to generate the solutions. The models may simply be producing plausible-sounding explanations rather than accurately reflecting their internal decision-making.
-
Generalization and Scaling: The researchers evaluate their framework on a relatively small set of algorithmic problems. It remains to be seen how well the approach scales to more complex problems and whether the insights gained transfer to a wider range of scenarios.
-
Practical Applications: While the researchers discuss potential applications in program synthesis and software engineering, the concrete benefits and real-world impact of their technique are not yet fully demonstrated. Further research would be needed to integrate this approach into tangible tools and workflows.
-
Broader Implications: The paper focuses primarily on the technical aspects of the research. It would be valuable to also consider the broader implications of being able to extract detailed explanations from LLMs, both in terms of the potential benefits and the ethical considerations around the interpretability and transparency of these powerful AI systems.
Overall, this research represents an intriguing step forward in understanding the inner workings of large language models and their algorithmic reasoning capabilities. By continuing to explore and refine techniques like this, we may gain valuable insights that help shape the future development of more capable and trustworthy AI systems.
Conclusion
This research paper introduces a novel approach for distilling algorithmic reasoning from large language models (LLMs) by having them explain their own solution programs. The key idea is to leverage the impressive problem-solving abilities of LLMs and then extract insights into their underlying reasoning by prompting them to provide step-by-step explanations of their solutions.
The researchers demonstrate the feasibility of this approach through experiments with several LLM models on a suite of algorithmic programming problems. The resulting explanations provide a window into the models' algorithmic capabilities and decision-making processes, suggesting potential applications in areas like program synthesis and software engineering.
While the research has some limitations and areas for further exploration, it represents an important step towards understanding and leveraging the powerful algorithmic reasoning capabilities emerging in large language models. By continuing to develop techniques that can unpack the "black box" of LLMs, we may unlock new opportunities for building more transparent, capable, and trustworthy AI systems.
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
General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting
Robert Vacareanu, Anurag Pratik, Evangelia Spiliopoulou, Zheng Qi, Giovanni Paolini, Neha Anna John, Jie Ma, Yassine Benajiba, Miguel Ballesteros
0
0
Many of the recent capabilities demonstrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) arise primarily from their ability to exploit contextual information. In this paper, we explore ways to improve reasoning capabilities of LLMs through (1) exploration of different chains of thought and (2) validation of the individual steps of the reasoning process. We propose three general principles that a model should adhere to while reasoning: (i) Relevance, (ii) Mathematical Accuracy, and (iii) Logical Consistency. We apply these constraints to the reasoning steps generated by the LLM to improve the accuracy of the final generation. The constraints are applied in the form of verifiers: the model itself is asked to verify if the generated steps satisfy each constraint. To further steer the generations towards high-quality solutions, we use the perplexity of the reasoning steps as an additional verifier. We evaluate our method on 4 distinct types of reasoning tasks, spanning a total of 9 different datasets. Experiments show that our method is always better than vanilla generation, and, in 6 out of the 9 datasets, it is better than best-of N sampling which samples N reasoning chains and picks the lowest perplexity generation.
5/2/2024
💬
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
💬
GraphReason: Enhancing Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models through A Graph-Based Verification Approach
Lang Cao
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased impressive reasoning capabilities, particularly when guided by specifically designed prompts in complex reasoning tasks such as math word problems. These models typically solve tasks using a chain-of-thought approach, which not only bolsters their reasoning abilities but also provides valuable insights into their problem-solving process. However, there is still significant room for enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Some studies suggest that the integration of an LLM output verifier can boost reasoning accuracy without necessitating additional model training. In this paper, we follow these studies and introduce a novel graph-based method to further augment the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We posit that multiple solutions to a reasoning task, generated by an LLM, can be represented as a reasoning graph due to the logical connections between intermediate steps from different reasoning paths. Therefore, we propose the Reasoning Graph Verifier (GraphReason) to analyze and verify the solutions generated by LLMs. By evaluating these graphs, models can yield more accurate and reliable results.Our experimental results show that our graph-based verification method not only significantly enhances the reasoning abilities of LLMs but also outperforms existing verifier methods in terms of improving these models' reasoning performance.
4/23/2024
💬
LLM Reasoners: New Evaluation, Library, and Analysis of Step-by-Step Reasoning with Large Language Models
Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haotian Luo, Tianyang Liu, Xiyan Shao, Xinyuan Wang, Shuhua Xie, Haodi Ma, Adithya Samavedhi, Qiyue Gao, Zhen Wang, Zhiting Hu
0
0
Generating accurate step-by-step reasoning is essential for Large Language Models (LLMs) to address complex problems and enhance robustness and interpretability. Despite the flux of research on developing advanced reasoning approaches, systematically analyzing the diverse LLMs and reasoning strategies in generating reasoning chains remains a significant challenge. The difficulties stem from the lack of two key elements: (1) an automatic method for evaluating the generated reasoning chains on different tasks, and (2) a unified formalism and implementation of the diverse reasoning approaches for systematic comparison. This paper aims to close the gap: (1) We introduce AutoRace for fully automated reasoning chain evaluation. Existing metrics rely on expensive human annotations or pre-defined LLM prompts not adaptable to different tasks. In contrast, AutoRace automatically creates detailed evaluation criteria tailored for each task, and uses GPT-4 for accurate evaluation following the criteria. (2) We develop LLM Reasoners, a library for standardized modular implementation of existing and new reasoning algorithms, under a unified formulation of the search, reward, and world model components. With the new evaluation and library, (3) we conduct extensive study of different reasoning approaches (e.g., CoT, ToT, RAP). The analysis reveals interesting findings about different factors contributing to reasoning, including the reward-guidance, breadth-vs-depth in search, world model, and prompt formats, etc.
4/9/2024