General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting
2405.00204
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a general-purpose verification system for chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, a technique used to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
- The proposed system aims to verify the correctness and logical flow of the step-by-step reasoning process generated by LLMs in response to complex prompts.
- The authors evaluate their approach on a diverse set of tasks, demonstrating its effectiveness in catching errors and inconsistencies in the CoT responses.
Plain English Explanation
The paper describes a new system that can check the reasoning process used by large language models when they are asked to solve complex problems. Large language models are AI systems that are trained on huge amounts of text data and can generate human-like responses to prompts.
However, when these models are asked to solve multi-step problems, their responses may contain errors or logical inconsistencies. The new verification system proposed in this paper is designed to catch these issues and ensure the reasoning process is sound.
The authors test their verification system on a variety of tasks, and show that it is effective at identifying flaws in the step-by-step reasoning provided by language models. This is an important development, as it can help improve the reliability and trustworthiness of these powerful AI systems when they are used to tackle complex real-world problems.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a general purpose verification for chain of thought prompting system that can check the correctness and logical flow of the step-by-step reasoning process generated by large language models.
The authors draw inspiration from previous work on demystifying chains, trees, and graphs of thoughts and using small language models to help large language models. They develop a verification framework that leverages a separate "verifier" model to assess the validity and coherence of the reasoning chains produced by the primary language model.
The verifier model is trained on a dataset of correct and incorrect reasoning chains, allowing it to learn the characteristics of sound logical flow. During evaluation, the verifier examines the step-by-step reasoning provided by the language model and identifies any inconsistencies or errors.
The authors test their approach on a diverse set of tasks, including LLM reasoners - a new evaluation library and analysis and CoTAR: Chain of Thought Attribution Reasoning for Multi-Level. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the verification system in catching flaws in the language model's reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling solution to a crucial challenge in the development of reliable and trustworthy large language models. The proposed verification system addresses a key limitation of these models - their tendency to generate responses with logical inconsistencies or errors when tackling complex, multi-step problems.
One potential limitation of the approach is the reliance on a separate verifier model, which adds complexity and may introduce its own biases or errors. The authors acknowledge this and suggest exploring ways to integrate the verification capabilities more seamlessly into the primary language model.
Additionally, the evaluation focuses on a relatively narrow set of tasks, and further research may be needed to assess the generalizability of the verification system across a wider range of real-world applications. The authors also note that the current system is not able to provide detailed feedback on the nature of the errors, which could limit its usefulness in certain contexts.
Overall, the paper makes a significant contribution to the field of AI safety and reliability, and the proposed verification system represents an important step towards more trustworthy and capable large language models.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel general-purpose verification system for chain-of-thought prompting, a technique used to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models. By employing a separate verifier model to assess the validity and coherence of the step-by-step reasoning generated by the primary language model, the authors have developed a powerful tool for improving the reliability and trustworthiness of these AI systems.
The successful evaluation of the verification system across a diverse set of tasks highlights its potential to address a crucial limitation of large language models - their tendency to produce responses with logical inconsistencies or errors when tackling complex, multi-step problems. While the approach has some limitations, the insights and techniques described in this paper represent an important advancement in the field of AI safety and reliability, with significant implications for the real-world deployment of these powerful AI technologies.
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
💬
Why Can Large Language Models Generate Correct Chain-of-Thoughts?
Rasul Tutunov, Antoine Grosnit, Juliusz Ziomek, Jun Wang, Haitham Bou-Ammar
0
0
This paper delves into the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), specifically focusing on advancing the theoretical comprehension of chain-of-thought prompting. We investigate how LLMs can be effectively induced to generate a coherent chain of thoughts. To achieve this, we introduce a two-level hierarchical graphical model tailored for natural language generation. Within this framework, we establish a compelling geometrical convergence rate that gauges the likelihood of an LLM-generated chain of thoughts compared to those originating from the true language. Our findings provide a theoretical justification for the ability of LLMs to produce the correct sequence of thoughts (potentially) explaining performance gains in tasks demanding reasoning skills.
6/7/2024
A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains
Alon Jacovi, Yonatan Bitton, Bernd Bohnet, Jonathan Herzig, Or Honovich, Michael Tseng, Michael Collins, Roee Aharoni, Mor Geva
0
0
Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., Chain-of-Thought) is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce REVEAL: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question-answering settings. REVEAL includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models. Evaluation on REVEAL shows that verifiers struggle at verifying reasoning chains - in particular, verifying logical correctness and detecting contradictions. Available at https://reveal-dataset.github.io/ .
5/22/2024
💬
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
Demystifying Chains, Trees, and Graphs of Thoughts
Maciej Besta, Florim Memedi, Zhenyu Zhang, Robert Gerstenberger, Guangyuan Piao, Nils Blach, Piotr Nyczyk, Marcin Copik, Grzegorz Kwa'sniewski, Jurgen Muller, Lukas Gianinazzi, Ales Kubicek, Hubert Niewiadomski, Aidan O'Mahony, Onur Mutlu, Torsten Hoefler
0
0
The field of natural language processing (NLP) has witnessed significant progress in recent years, with a notable focus on improving large language models' (LLM) performance through innovative prompting techniques. Among these, prompt engineering coupled with structures has emerged as a promising paradigm, with designs such as Chain-of-Thought, Tree of Thoughts, or Graph of Thoughts, in which the overall LLM reasoning is guided by a structure such as a graph. As illustrated with numerous examples, this paradigm significantly enhances the LLM's capability to solve numerous tasks, ranging from logical or mathematical reasoning to planning or creative writing. To facilitate the understanding of this growing field and pave the way for future developments, we devise a general blueprint for effective and efficient LLM reasoning schemes. For this, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the prompt execution pipeline, clarifying and clearly defining different concepts. We then build the first taxonomy of structure-enhanced LLM reasoning schemes. We focus on identifying fundamental classes of harnessed structures, and we analyze the representations of these structures, algorithms executed with these structures, and many others. We refer to these structures as reasoning topologies, because their representation becomes to a degree spatial, as they are contained within the LLM context. Our study compares existing prompting schemes using the proposed taxonomy, discussing how certain design choices lead to different patterns in performance and cost. We also outline theoretical underpinnings, relationships between prompting and other parts of the LLM ecosystem such as knowledge bases, and the associated research challenges. Our work will help to advance future prompt engineering techniques.
4/8/2024