Learning to Correct for QA Reasoning with Black-box LLMs
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Researchers investigate how to train language models to detect and correct reasoning errors in question-answering tasks
- Approach involves using a small, specialized model to identify and fix errors made by a larger, general-purpose language model
- Experiments show this method can improve the performance of the larger model on challenging reasoning-focused QA datasets
Plain English Explanation
Artificial intelligence (AI) models called large language models (LLMs) have become very good at answering questions by processing text. However, these LLMs can sometimes make mistakes in their reasoning, leading to incorrect answers. Researchers in this paper explore a way to address this issue by training a smaller, specialized AI model to identify and fix the reasoning errors made by the larger LLM.
The key idea is to use the smaller model to review the responses from the larger LLM and make corrections where needed. This approach could help improve the overall performance of the LLM on challenging question-answering tasks that require careful reasoning. The researchers test their method on several datasets and find that it can significantly boost the accuracy of the larger LLM.
This work represents an important step towards building AI systems that can not only generate responses, but also self-evaluate and correct their own mistakes. By combining the strengths of different AI models, the researchers aim to create more reliable and robust question-answering capabilities. This could have valuable applications in areas like education, customer service, and knowledge retrieval.
Technical Explanation
The researchers propose a "learning to correct" framework to address reasoning errors made by black-box LLMs in question-answering tasks. The key elements of their approach are:
- Error Detection Model: A small, specialized model is trained to identify instances where the LLM has made a reasoning error in its answer.
- Error Correction Model: Another small model is trained to generate a corrected answer given the original question and the LLM's response.
- Integration with LLM: The error detection and correction models are used to post-process the output of the larger LLM, allowing it to benefit from the specialized reasoning capabilities of the smaller models.
Experiments on datasets like [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/llms-cannot-find-reasoning-errors-but-can] and [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/evaluating-llms-mathematical-coding-competency-through-ontology] show that this approach can significantly improve the LLM's performance on challenging reasoning-focused questions. The authors also demonstrate the generality of their method by applying it to different LLM architectures.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations of their work, including the potential for the error detection and correction models to introduce their own biases and errors. Additionally, the approach relies on having access to the internal workings of the LLM, which may not always be feasible in real-world scenarios where the LLM is a black-box system.
Further research could explore ways to make the method more robust and generalizable, such as by [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/small-language-models-need-strong-verifiers-to] or [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/can-small-language-models-help-large-language]. Additionally, the integration of the smaller models with the LLM could be further optimized to [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/curiousllm-elevating-multi-document-qa-reasoning-infused].
Overall, this work represents an important contribution to the field of AI-powered question-answering, and the proposed approach shows promise for improving the reliability and reasoning capabilities of large language models.
Conclusion
The researchers in this paper have developed a novel framework for training smaller AI models to detect and correct reasoning errors made by larger, more general-purpose language models. Their experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in boosting the performance of LLMs on challenging question-answering tasks that require sound logical reasoning.
This work highlights the potential benefits of combining the strengths of different AI models to create more robust and reliable question-answering systems. As large language models continue to advance, techniques like the one proposed in this paper will be crucial for ensuring their outputs are accurate, trustworthy, and aligned with human values. The researchers' findings could have important implications for the development of next-generation AI assistants, educational tools, and knowledge management applications.
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
0
Learning to Correct for QA Reasoning with Black-box LLMs
Jaehyung Kim, Dongyoung Kim, Yiming Yang
An open challenge in recent machine learning is about how to improve the reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs) in a black-box setting, i.e., without access to detailed information such as output token probabilities. Existing approaches either rely on accessibility (which is often unrealistic) or involve significantly increased train- and inference-time costs. This paper addresses those limitations or shortcomings by proposing a novel approach, namely CoBB (Correct for improving QA reasoning of Black-Box LLMs). It uses a trained adaptation model to perform a seq2seq mapping from the often-imperfect reasonings of the original black-box LLM to the correct or improved reasonings. Specifically, the adaptation model is initialized with a relatively small open-source LLM and adapted over a collection of sub-sampled training pairs. To select the representative pairs of correct and incorrect reasonings, we formulated the dataset construction as an optimization problem that minimizes the statistical divergence between the sampled subset and the entire collection, and solved it via a genetic algorithm. We then train the adaptation model over the sampled pairs by contrasting the likelihoods of correct and incorrect reasonings. Our experimental results demonstrate that CoBB significantly improves reasoning accuracy across various QA benchmarks, compared to the best-performing adaptation baselines.
Read more6/28/2024
0
Learning From Correctness Without Prompting Makes LLM Efficient Reasoner
Yuxuan Yao, Han Wu, Zhijiang Guo, Biyan Zhou, Jiahui Gao, Sichun Luo, Hanxu Hou, Xiaojin Fu, Linqi Song
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated outstanding performance across various tasks, yet they still exhibit limitations such as hallucination, unfaithful reasoning, and toxic content. One potential approach to mitigate these issues is learning from human or external feedback (e.g. tools). In this paper, we introduce an intrinsic self-correct reasoning framework for LLMs that eliminates the need for human feedback, external tools, and handcraft prompts. The proposed framework, based on a multi-step reasoning paradigm textbf{Le}arning from textbf{Co}rrectness (textsc{LeCo}), improves reasoning performance without needing to learn from errors. This paradigm prioritizes learning from correct reasoning steps, and a unique method to measure confidence for each reasoning step based on generation logits. Experimental results across various multi-step reasoning tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of the framework in improving reasoning performance with reduced token consumption.
Read more7/19/2024
🤯
167
LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location
Gladys Tyen, Hassan Mansoor, Victor Cu{a}rbune, Peter Chen, Tony Mak
While self-correction has shown promise in improving LLM outputs in terms of style and quality (e.g. Chen et al., 2023b; Madaan et al., 2023), recent attempts to self-correct logical or reasoning errors often cause correct answers to become incorrect, resulting in worse performances overall (Huang et al., 2023). In this paper, we show that poor self-correction performance stems from LLMs' inability to find logical mistakes, rather than their ability to correct a known mistake. Firstly, we benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on their mistake-finding ability and demonstrate that they generally struggle with the task, even in highly objective, unambiguous cases. Secondly, we test the correction abilities of LLMs -- separately from mistake finding -- using a backtracking setup that feeds ground truth mistake location information to the model. We show that this boosts downstream task performance across our 5 reasoning tasks, indicating that LLMs' correction abilities are robust. Finally, we show that it is possible to obtain mistake location information without ground truth labels or in-domain training data. We train a small classifier with out-of-domain data, which exhibits stronger mistake-finding performance than prompting a large model. We release our dataset of LLM-generated logical mistakes, BIG-Bench Mistake, to enable further research into locating LLM reasoning mistakes.
Read more6/5/2024
💬
0
Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning
Yunxiang Zhang, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang
Self-correction has emerged as a promising solution to boost the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), where LLMs refine their solutions using self-generated critiques that pinpoint the errors. This work explores whether small (<= 13B) language models (LMs) have the ability of self-correction on reasoning tasks with minimal inputs from stronger LMs. We propose a novel pipeline that prompts smaller LMs to collect self-correction data that supports the training of self-refinement abilities. First, we leverage correct solutions to guide the model in critiquing their incorrect responses. Second, the generated critiques, after filtering, are used for supervised fine-tuning of the self-correcting reasoner through solution refinement. Our experimental results show improved self-correction abilities of two models on five datasets spanning math and commonsense reasoning, with notable performance gains when paired with a strong GPT-4-based verifier, though limitations are identified when using a weak self-verifier for determining when to correct.
Read more6/7/2024