Evaluating LLMs' Inherent Multi-hop Reasoning Ability

Overview

• Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at question-answering tasks, but their multi-step reasoning abilities on Multi-hop QA tasks are not well-understood.
• LLMs sometimes generate answers based on internal memory rather than reasoning given the context, which raises concerns about the quality of evaluating their true reasoning abilities.
• The Counterfactual QA task can separate internal memory from reasoning, but focusing solely on final-QA performance without evaluating the multi-step reasoning process is insufficient for understanding LLMs' real reasoning abilities.
• Current Multi-hop QA (MHQA) benchmarks use factual data from open-source corpora like Wikipedia, which may be contaminated by the LLMs' pre-training stage.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are very good at answering questions, but we don't fully understand how they are able to reason through complex, multi-step problems. Sometimes, LLMs may rely more on their internal memory rather than actually reasoning based on the information provided in the question.

To better evaluate the reasoning abilities of LLMs, researchers have developed the Counterfactual QA task, which can separate a model's internal memory from its actual reasoning skills. However, even this approach has limitations, as it only looks at the final answer without considering the step-by-step reasoning process.

Existing benchmarks for multi-hop reasoning, where a model has to combine information from multiple sources to answer a question, use factual data from sources like Wikipedia. But this data may be "contaminated" because the LLMs were likely trained on similar Wikipedia content, giving them an unfair advantage.

Technical Explanation

The paper introduces a novel evaluation method called the Inherent Reasoning Evaluation (IRE) to more accurately assess the multi-step reasoning capabilities of LLMs. The IRE uses a knowledge-edited version of the Multi-hop QA (MHQA) dataset, reducing the risk of data contamination from LLM pre-training.

The IRE comprehensively evaluates the reasoning chains of LLMs through both sub-QA and final-QA assessments. Sub-QA evaluates the model's ability to answer intermediate questions that are part of the larger multi-hop reasoning process, while final-QA looks at the overall question-answering performance.

The researchers compared the performance of several LLMs on the IRE benchmark versus traditional Wikipedia-based MHQA benchmarks. They found significant gaps in performance, suggesting that data contamination issues in existing benchmarks may be masking the true limitations of LLMs' multi-step reasoning abilities.

Critical Analysis

The paper highlights an important issue in the evaluation of LLMs' reasoning capabilities. Existing benchmarks may not be sufficient for truly assessing how well these models can engage in multi-step reasoning, as the data they are tested on may be too familiar due to pre-training.

The IRE approach is a step in the right direction, as it uses a knowledge-edited version of the MHQA dataset to reduce the risk of data contamination. However, the paper does not provide much detail on the specific editing process or the extent to which the edited passages differ from the original Wikipedia content.

It would be valuable to see further analysis on the types of reasoning errors made by LLMs on the IRE benchmark compared to the Wikipedia-based benchmarks. This could provide deeper insights into the specific reasoning limitations of LLMs and guide future research on improving their multi-step reasoning abilities.

Additionally, the paper does not address the scalability of the IRE approach or how it could be applied to other types of reasoning tasks beyond MHQA. Exploring the generalizability of the IRE method would be an important area for future research.

Conclusion

This paper highlights a significant concern in the evaluation of LLMs' reasoning abilities: the potential for data contamination in existing benchmarks due to the models' pre-training on similar content. The introduction of the Inherent Reasoning Evaluation (IRE) method is a promising approach to address this issue, as it uses a knowledge-edited multi-hop QA dataset to more accurately assess the models' multi-step reasoning performance.

The findings of this research suggest that the true limitations of LLMs' reasoning capabilities may be underestimated when using traditional benchmarks. The IRE method offers a more robust and trustworthy way to evaluate these models, which could inform the development of more capable reasoning systems in the future.