LLMs can Find Mathematical Reasoning Mistakes by Pedagogical Chain-of-Thought
2405.06705
0
0
🔄
Abstract
Self-correction is emerging as a promising approach to mitigate the issue of hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs). To facilitate effective self-correction, recent research has proposed mistake detection as its initial step. However, current literature suggests that LLMs often struggle with reliably identifying reasoning mistakes when using simplistic prompting strategies. To address this challenge, we introduce a unique prompting strategy, termed the Pedagogical Chain-of-Thought (PedCoT), which is specifically designed to guide the identification of reasoning mistakes, particularly mathematical reasoning mistakes. PedCoT consists of pedagogical principles for prompts (PPP) design, two-stage interaction process (TIP) and grounded PedCoT prompts, all inspired by the educational theory of the Bloom Cognitive Model (BCM). We evaluate our approach on two public datasets featuring math problems of varying difficulty levels. The experiments demonstrate that our zero-shot prompting strategy significantly outperforms strong baselines. The proposed method can achieve the goal of reliable mathematical mistake identification and provide a foundation for automatic math answer grading. The results underscore the significance of educational theory, serving as domain knowledge, in guiding prompting strategy design for addressing challenging tasks with LLMs effectively.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Self-correction in Large Language Models (LLMs) can help mitigate the issue of hallucination (generating false information).
- Recent research has proposed mistake detection as the initial step for effective self-correction.
- Current methods struggle to reliably identify reasoning mistakes using simple prompting strategies.
Plain English Explanation
Self-correction is emerging as a promising approach to mitigate the issue of hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs). To facilitate this, researchers have proposed that the first step is to detect when the model has made a mistake. However, current techniques often have trouble reliably identifying reasoning errors, especially in mathematical problems, when using basic prompting strategies.
To address this challenge, the researchers have developed a new prompting approach called the "Pedagogical Chain-of-Thought" (PedCoT). PedCoT is designed to guide the LLM in identifying reasoning mistakes, particularly in math problems. It draws inspiration from the educational theory of the Bloom Cognitive Model (BCM), which outlines different levels of cognitive processing.
The PedCoT approach includes three key elements:
- Pedagogical principles for prompt design
- A two-stage interaction process
- Grounded PedCoT prompts
The researchers evaluated this PedCoT approach on two public datasets featuring math problems of varying difficulty levels. The results show that their zero-shot (without any additional training) prompting strategy significantly outperforms other strong baselines. This suggests that incorporating educational theory can be very helpful in guiding the design of prompting strategies to effectively address challenging tasks with LLMs.
Technical Explanation
The researchers introduce a unique prompting strategy, termed the Pedagogical Chain-of-Thought (PedCoT), which is specifically designed to guide the identification of reasoning mistakes, particularly mathematical reasoning mistakes. PedCoT consists of three key elements:
-
Pedagogical Principles for Prompts (PPP): These are design principles for prompts that leverage educational theory, such as the Bloom Cognitive Model (BCM), to structure the reasoning process.
-
Two-stage Interaction Process (TIP): This involves a two-step interaction where the model first attempts to solve the problem, and then is prompted to identify any mistakes in its reasoning.
-
Grounded PedCoT Prompts: These are specific prompts that incorporate the PPP and TIP to guide the model towards reliable mistake detection, especially for mathematical reasoning.
The researchers evaluate their approach on two public datasets featuring math problems of varying difficulty levels. The experiments demonstrate that their zero-shot (without any additional training) prompting strategy significantly outperforms strong baselines. This suggests that the proposed method can achieve the goal of reliable mathematical mistake identification and provide a foundation for automatic math answer grading.
Critical Analysis
The results underscore the significance of educational theory, serving as domain knowledge, in guiding prompting strategy design for addressing challenging tasks with LLMs effectively. However, the paper does not discuss any potential limitations or caveats of the PedCoT approach.
One area for further research could be to investigate how the PedCoT prompting strategy performs on a wider range of reasoning tasks beyond just mathematics. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore how the principles of the Bloom Cognitive Model could be applied to prompt design for other domains, not just problem-solving.
Conclusion
In summary, the researchers have developed a novel prompting strategy called PedCoT that leverages educational theory to guide LLMs in reliably identifying reasoning mistakes, particularly in mathematical problem-solving. This work highlights the potential for incorporating domain-specific knowledge, such as educational frameworks, to enhance the capabilities of large language models in addressing challenging tasks.
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
Chain-of-Though (CoT) prompting strategies for medical error detection and correction
Zhaolong Wu, Abul Hasan, Jinge Wu, Yunsoo Kim, Jason P. Y. Cheung, Teng Zhang, Honghan Wu
0
0
This paper describes our submission to the MEDIQA-CORR 2024 shared task for automatically detecting and correcting medical errors in clinical notes. We report results for three methods of few-shot In-Context Learning (ICL) augmented with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and reason prompts using a large language model (LLM). In the first method, we manually analyse a subset of train and validation dataset to infer three CoT prompts by examining error types in the clinical notes. In the second method, we utilise the training dataset to prompt the LLM to deduce reasons about their correctness or incorrectness. The constructed CoTs and reasons are then augmented with ICL examples to solve the tasks of error detection, span identification, and error correction. Finally, we combine the two methods using a rule-based ensemble method. Across the three sub-tasks, our ensemble method achieves a ranking of 3rd for both sub-task 1 and 2, while securing 7th place in sub-task 3 among all submissions.
6/14/2024
💬
Learning to Check: Unleashing Potentials for Self-Correction in Large Language Models
Che Zhang, Zhenyang Xiao, Chengcheng Han, Yixin Lian, Yuejian Fang
0
0
Self-correction has achieved impressive results in enhancing the style and security of the generated output from large language models (LLMs). However, recent studies suggest that self-correction might be limited or even counterproductive in reasoning tasks due to LLMs' difficulties in identifying logical mistakes. In this paper, we aim to enhance the self-checking capabilities of LLMs by constructing training data for checking tasks. Specifically, we apply the Chain of Thought (CoT) methodology to self-checking tasks, utilizing fine-grained step-level analyses and explanations to assess the correctness of reasoning paths. We propose a specialized checking format called Step CoT Check. Following this format, we construct a checking-correction dataset that includes detailed step-by-step analysis and checking. Then we fine-tune LLMs to enhance their error detection and correction abilities. Our experiments demonstrate that fine-tuning with the Step CoT Check format significantly improves the self-checking and self-correction abilities of LLMs across multiple benchmarks. This approach outperforms other formats, especially in locating the incorrect position, with greater benefits observed in larger models. For reproducibility, all the datasets and code are provided in https://github.com/bammt/Learn-to-check.
6/18/2024
💬
Boosting Language Models Reasoning with Chain-of-Knowledge Prompting
Jianing Wang, Qiushi Sun, Xiang Li, Ming Gao
0
0
Recently, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has delivered success on complex reasoning tasks, which aims at designing a simple prompt like ``Let's think step by step'' or multiple in-context exemplars with well-designed rationales to elicit Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate intermediate reasoning steps. However, the generated rationales often come with mistakes, making unfactual and unfaithful reasoning chains. To mitigate this brittleness, we propose a novel Chain-of-Knowledge (CoK) prompting, where we aim at eliciting LLMs to generate explicit pieces of knowledge evidence in the form of structure triple. This is inspired by our human behaviors, i.e., we can draw a mind map or knowledge map as the reasoning evidence in the brain before answering a complex question. Benefiting from CoK, we additionally introduce a F^2-Verification method to estimate the reliability of the reasoning chains in terms of factuality and faithfulness. For the unreliable response, the wrong evidence can be indicated to prompt the LLM to rethink. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method can further improve the performance of commonsense, factual, symbolic, and arithmetic reasoning tasks.
6/4/2024
Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs' Errors to Boost for Reasoning
Yongqi Tong, Dawei Li, Sizhe Wang, Yujia Wang, Fei Teng, Jingbo Shang
0
0
Recent works have shown the benefits to LLMs from fine-tuning golden-standard Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales or using them as correct examples in few-shot prompting. While humans can indeed imitate correct examples, learning from our mistakes is another vital aspect of human cognition. Hence, a question naturally arises: textit{can LLMs learn and benefit from their mistakes, especially for their reasoning? } This study investigates this problem from both the prompting and model-tuning perspectives. We begin by introducing textsc{CoTErrorSet}, a new benchmark with 609,432 questions, each designed with both correct and error references, and demonstrating the types and reasons for making such mistakes. To explore the effectiveness of those mistakes, we design two methods: (1) textbf{Self-rethinking} prompting guides LLMs to rethink whether they have made similar previous mistakes; and (2) textbf{Mistake tuning} involves finetuning models in both correct and incorrect reasoning domains, rather than only tuning models to learn ground truth in traditional methodology. We conduct a series of experiments to prove LLMs can obtain benefits from mistakes in both directions. Our two methods offer potentially cost-effective strategies by leveraging errors to enhance reasoning capabilities, which costs significantly less than creating meticulously hand-crafted golden references. We ultimately make a thorough analysis of the reasons behind LLMs' errors, which provides directions that future research needs to overcome. textsc{CoTErrorSet} will be published soon on texttt{url{https://github.com/YookiTong/Learn-from-Mistakes-CotErrorSet}}.
6/10/2024