Language Models as Compilers: Simulating Pseudocode Execution Improves Algorithmic Reasoning in Language Models
2404.02575
170
0
💬
Abstract
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.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This paper presents a novel framework called "Think-and-Execute" for improving the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
- Algorithmic reasoning involves understanding complex patterns and breaking them down into a sequence of logical steps to reach a solution.
- This is a challenge for LLMs, despite their strong performance on other reasoning tasks.
- Previous approaches have used programming languages like Python to express the necessary logic, but it is difficult to generate executable code within a single inference call.
- The Think-and-Execute framework decomposes the reasoning process into two steps: (1) Discovering and expressing the task-level logic in pseudocode, and (2) Tailoring the pseudocode to each instance and simulating its execution.
Plain English Explanation
The paper addresses a key challenge in the field of algorithmic reasoning, which is the ability to understand complex patterns and break them down into logical steps to solve a problem. Even though large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks, they still struggle with this type of algorithmic reasoning.
Previous approaches have tried to use programming languages, like Python, to express the necessary logic for solving a problem. However, it's difficult to generate executable code within a single inference call that accurately captures the correct logic. Additionally, the code generated for a specific instance cannot be reused for other instances, even if they require the same underlying logic.
The "Think-and-Execute" framework presented in this paper tries to address these challenges. It decomposes the reasoning process into two steps:
-
Think: In this step, the framework discovers the task-level logic that is shared across all instances for solving a particular problem. This shared logic is then expressed using pseudocode, which is a more natural way for language models to understand the reasoning process.
-
Execute: In this second step, the generated pseudocode is further tailored to each specific instance, and the execution of the code is simulated to arrive at the final solution.
By separating the reasoning process into these two steps, the framework is able to better guide the language models' reasoning and improve their performance on a variety of algorithmic reasoning tasks. The authors show that their approach outperforms other strong baselines, such as CoT (Chain-of-Thought) and PoT (Program-of-Thought), which perform instance-specific reasoning.
The key insight is that discovering and expressing the task-level logic in pseudocode can be more helpful for language models than trying to generate executable code for each individual instance. This suggests that combining language and symbolic approaches may be a fruitful direction for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a novel framework called "Think-and-Execute" to enhance the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). The framework decomposes the reasoning process into two distinct steps:
-
Think: In this step, the framework discovers the task-level logic that is shared across all instances for a given problem. This shared logic is then expressed using pseudocode, which is a more natural and intuitive way for language models to understand the reasoning process.
-
Execute: In the second step, the generated pseudocode is further tailored to each specific instance, and the execution of the code is simulated to arrive at the final solution.
The authors argue that this two-step approach is more effective than previous approaches that try to generate executable code within a single inference call, such as CoT (Chain-of-Thought) and PoT (Program-of-Thought). The key advantage is that the task-level logic expressed in pseudocode can be shared and reused across instances, even if they require the same underlying reasoning.
The authors conduct extensive experiments on seven different algorithmic reasoning tasks to evaluate the effectiveness of the Think-and-Execute framework. They compare their approach to several strong baselines and demonstrate that it outperforms them in terms of improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
The authors also find that the use of pseudocode can better guide the reasoning of language models, even though they are primarily trained on natural language instructions. This suggests that combining language and symbolic approaches may be a promising direction for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-designed and thorough evaluation of the Think-and-Execute framework on a diverse set of algorithmic reasoning tasks. The authors provide a clear and compelling argument for the benefits of their approach compared to previous methods that rely on instance-specific reasoning.
One potential limitation that could be addressed in future research is the scalability of the framework. While the authors demonstrate its effectiveness on the tasks studied, it would be important to understand how the framework performs as the complexity and diversity of the problems increase. Additionally, the paper does not explore the generalization of the discovered task-level logic to new, unseen instances or tasks.
Another area for further investigation could be the interpretability and transparency of the reasoning process. While the use of pseudocode is presented as a more intuitive way for language models to understand the logic, it would be valuable to explore techniques that could provide more detailed insights into the models' decision-making process.
Overall, the Think-and-Execute framework represents a significant contribution to the field of algorithmic reasoning for large language models. The authors have demonstrated a novel and effective approach that combines language and symbolic reasoning, paving the way for further advancements in this important area of research.
Conclusion
This paper presents the "Think-and-Execute" framework, a novel approach for enhancing the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). The key innovation is the decomposition of the reasoning process into two steps: (1) Discovering and expressing the task-level logic in pseudocode, and (2) Tailoring the pseudocode to each instance and simulating its execution.
The authors' extensive experiments show that their framework outperforms strong baselines, such as CoT (Chain-of-Thought) and PoT (Program-of-Thought), suggesting the benefits of discovering and leveraging task-level logic.
The findings also indicate that the use of pseudocode can better guide the reasoning of language models, even though they are primarily trained on natural language instructions. This underscores the potential of combining language and symbolic approaches to further enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models.
The Think-and-Execute framework represents a significant step forward in the field of algorithmic reasoning, and the insights from this research could have far-reaching implications for the development of more capable and reliable language-based AI systems.
Related Papers
💬
NExT: Teaching Large Language Models to Reason about Code Execution
Ansong Ni, Miltiadis Allamanis, Arman Cohan, Yinlin Deng, Kensen Shi, Charles Sutton, Pengcheng Yin
0
0
A fundamental skill among human developers is the ability to understand and reason about program execution. As an example, a programmer can mentally simulate code execution in natural language to debug and repair code (aka. rubber duck debugging). However, large language models (LLMs) of code are typically trained on the surface textual form of programs, thus may lack a semantic understanding of how programs execute at run-time. To address this issue, we propose NExT, a method to teach LLMs to inspect the execution traces of programs (variable states of executed lines) and reason about their run-time behavior through chain-of-thought (CoT) rationales. Specifically, NExT uses self-training to bootstrap a synthetic training set of execution-aware rationales that lead to correct task solutions (e.g., fixed programs) without laborious manual annotation. Experiments on program repair tasks based on MBPP and HumanEval demonstrate that NExT improves the fix rate of a PaLM 2 model, by 26.1% and 14.3% absolute, respectively, with significantly improved rationale quality as verified by automated metrics and human raters. Our model can also generalize to scenarios where program traces are absent at test-time.
4/24/2024
Distilling Algorithmic Reasoning from LLMs via Explaining Solution Programs
Jierui Li, Raymond Mooney
0
0
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.
4/15/2024
💬
Evaluating the Deductive Competence of Large Language Models
Spencer M. Seals, Valerie L. Shalin
0
0
The development of highly fluent large language models (LLMs) has prompted increased interest in assessing their reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. We investigate whether several LLMs can solve a classic type of deductive reasoning problem from the cognitive science literature. The tested LLMs have limited abilities to solve these problems in their conventional form. We performed follow up experiments to investigate if changes to the presentation format and content improve model performance. We do find performance differences between conditions; however, they do not improve overall performance. Moreover, we find that performance interacts with presentation format and content in unexpected ways that differ from human performance. Overall, our results suggest that LLMs have unique reasoning biases that are only partially predicted from human reasoning performance and the human-generated language corpora that informs them.
4/16/2024
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