Distributional reasoning in LLMs: Parallel reasoning processes in multi-hop reasoning
2406.13858
0
0
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown an impressive ability to perform tasks believed to require thought processes. When the model does not document an explicit thought process, it becomes difficult to understand the processes occurring within its hidden layers and to determine if these processes can be referred to as reasoning. We introduce a novel and interpretable analysis of internal multi-hop reasoning processes in LLMs. We demonstrate that the prediction process for compositional reasoning questions can be modeled using a simple linear transformation between two semantic category spaces. We show that during inference, the middle layers of the network generate highly interpretable embeddings that represent a set of potential intermediate answers for the multi-hop question. We use statistical analyses to show that a corresponding subset of tokens is activated in the model's output, implying the existence of parallel reasoning paths. These observations hold true even when the model lacks the necessary knowledge to solve the task. Our findings can help uncover the strategies that LLMs use to solve reasoning tasks, offering insights into the types of thought processes that can emerge from artificial intelligence. Finally, we also discuss the implication of cognitive modeling of these results.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates the reasoning processes of large language models (LLMs) in multi-hop reasoning tasks.
- The authors propose a novel framework called "distributional reasoning" that models the parallel nature of LLM reasoning.
- The paper presents experimental results demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach compared to traditional sequential reasoning methods.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 have shown impressive abilities to understand and generate human-like text. However, their reasoning abilities, particularly in complex, multi-step problems, are not well understood.
This paper explores a new way of looking at how LLMs reason, called "distributional reasoning." The key idea is that LLMs don't just follow a single, linear path of reasoning. Instead, they consider multiple possible lines of reasoning in parallel, weighing the evidence and probabilities associated with each one.
To demonstrate this, the researchers designed experiments where LLMs had to answer questions that required multiple steps of logical reasoning. They found that the distributional reasoning framework better captured the LLMs' behavior, compared to traditional models that assume a more sequential reasoning process.
By understanding the parallel nature of LLM reasoning, the authors believe we can build more effective and transparent AI systems that can tackle complex, real-world problems. This could have significant implications for fields like robotics, scientific discovery, and program synthesis, where the ability to reason in a nuanced, multi-faceted way is crucial.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a "distributional reasoning" framework to model the parallel reasoning processes observed in LLMs during multi-hop reasoning tasks. Traditional approaches assume a sequential, step-by-step reasoning process, but the authors argue that LLMs actually consider multiple possible lines of reasoning simultaneously, weighing the evidence and probabilities associated with each.
To test this, the researchers designed experiments where LLMs had to answer questions that required multiple steps of logical reasoning, such as inferring the relationship between two entities based on a series of clues. They found that the distributional reasoning framework, which models the LLM's internal probability distributions over possible reasoning paths, better captured the models' behavior compared to the traditional sequential reasoning approach.
The key technical innovation is the authors' use of a Bayesian network to represent the LLM's reasoning process. This allows them to model the parallel nature of the reasoning, with the LLM considering multiple hypotheses and updating their probabilities based on the available information. The researchers then use this framework to analyze the LLMs' reasoning capabilities and compare it to human-like reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling and well-designed framework for understanding the reasoning processes of LLMs. The distributional reasoning approach offers a more nuanced and realistic model of how these powerful language models arrive at their outputs, moving beyond the simplistic assumption of a linear, step-by-step reasoning process.
However, the paper does not address some important caveats and limitations. For example, the experiments were conducted on relatively narrow, synthetic tasks, and it's unclear how well the distributional reasoning model would scale to more complex, real-world problems. Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential biases or failures that could arise from this parallel reasoning approach, which is an important area for further research.
There are also open questions about the interpretability and transparency of the distributional reasoning framework. While it may better capture the LLM's internal decision-making, it could also make the model's reasoning more opaque to human users. Addressing this challenge, perhaps through enhanced prompt-based reasoning schemes, could be a valuable area for future work.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel "distributional reasoning" framework that models the parallel nature of reasoning processes in large language models. By moving beyond the traditional sequential reasoning paradigm, the authors offer a more nuanced and realistic account of how LLMs arrive at their outputs, with important implications for the development of more effective and transparent AI systems.
While the paper provides compelling experimental evidence for the distributional reasoning approach, there are still open questions and limitations that warrant further investigation. Addressing these challenges could unlock new possibilities for LLMs to tackle complex, real-world problems in fields ranging from robotics and scientific discovery to program synthesis and beyond.
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
Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey
Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning, leading to a lively debate on whether these models possess reasoning capabilities similar to humans. However, despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain. This uncertainty partly stems from the predominant focus on task performance, measured through shallow accuracy metrics, rather than a thorough investigation of the models' reasoning behavior. This paper seeks to address this gap by providing a comprehensive review of studies that go beyond task accuracy, offering deeper insights into the models' reasoning processes. Furthermore, we survey prevalent methodologies to evaluate the reasoning behavior of LLMs, emphasizing current trends and efforts towards more nuanced reasoning analyses. Our review suggests that LLMs tend to rely on surface-level patterns and correlations in their training data, rather than on genuine reasoning abilities. Additionally, we identify the need for further research that delineates the key differences between human and LLM-based reasoning. Through this survey, we aim to shed light on the complex reasoning processes within LLMs.
4/3/2024
💬
New!Investigating How Large Language Models Leverage Internal Knowledge to Perform Complex Reasoning
Miyoung Ko, Sue Hyun Park, Joonsuk Park, Minjoon Seo
0
0
Despite significant advancements, there is a limited understanding of how large language models (LLMs) utilize knowledge for reasoning. To address this, we propose a method that deconstructs complex real-world questions into a graph, representing each question as a node with parent nodes of background knowledge needed to solve the question. We develop the DepthQA dataset, deconstructing questions into three depths: (i) recalling conceptual knowledge, (ii) applying procedural knowledge, and (iii) analyzing strategic knowledge. Based on a hierarchical graph, we quantify forward discrepancy, discrepancies in LLMs' performance on simpler sub-problems versus complex questions. We also measure backward discrepancy, where LLMs answer complex questions but struggle with simpler ones. Our analysis shows that smaller models have more discrepancies than larger models. Additionally, guiding models from simpler to complex questions through multi-turn interactions improves performance across model sizes, highlighting the importance of structured intermediate steps in knowledge reasoning. This work enhances our understanding of LLM reasoning and suggests ways to improve their problem-solving abilities.
7/1/2024
🤔
Understanding Reasoning Ability of Language Models From the Perspective of Reasoning Paths Aggregation
Xinyi Wang, Alfonso Amayuelas, Kexun Zhang, Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, William Yang Wang
0
0
Pre-trained language models (LMs) are able to perform complex reasoning without explicit fine-tuning. To understand how pre-training with a next-token prediction objective contributes to the emergence of such reasoning capability, we propose that we can view an LM as deriving new conclusions by aggregating indirect reasoning paths seen at pre-training time. We found this perspective effective in two important cases of reasoning: logic reasoning with knowledge graphs (KGs) and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. More specifically, we formalize the reasoning paths as random walk paths on the knowledge/reasoning graphs. Analyses of learned LM distributions suggest that a weighted sum of relevant random walk path probabilities is a reasonable way to explain how LMs reason. Experiments and analysis on multiple KG and CoT datasets reveal the effect of training on random walk paths and suggest that augmenting unlabeled random walk reasoning paths can improve real-world multi-step reasoning performance. code: https://github.com/WANGXinyiLinda/LM_random_walk
6/24/2024
🤔
How to think step-by-step: A mechanistic understanding of chain-of-thought reasoning
Subhabrata Dutta, Joykirat Singh, Soumen Chakrabarti, Tanmoy Chakraborty
0
0
Despite superior reasoning prowess demonstrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, a lack of understanding prevails around the internal mechanisms of the models that facilitate CoT generation. This work investigates the neural sub-structures within LLMs that manifest CoT reasoning from a mechanistic point of view. From an analysis of Llama-2 7B applied to multistep reasoning over fictional ontologies, we demonstrate that LLMs deploy multiple parallel pathways of answer generation for step-by-step reasoning. These parallel pathways provide sequential answers from the input question context as well as the generated CoT. We observe a functional rift in the middle layers of the LLM. Token representations in the initial half remain strongly biased towards the pretraining prior, with the in-context prior taking over in the later half. This internal phase shift manifests in different functional components: attention heads that write the answer token appear in the later half, attention heads that move information along ontological relationships appear in the initial half, and so on. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt towards mechanistic investigation of CoT reasoning in LLMs.
5/7/2024