Metacognitive Capabilities of LLMs: An Exploration in Mathematical Problem Solving
1
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the metacognitive capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in solving mathematical problems.
- It investigates the ability of LLMs to reason about their own problem-solving process, identify gaps in their knowledge, and strategize to overcome challenges.
- The research aims to advance the understanding of how LLMs can be leveraged for complex cognitive tasks beyond standard language processing.
Plain English Explanation
This paper looks at how well large language models (LLMs), which are AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data, can solve mathematical problems and think about their own problem-solving process. The researchers wanted to see if these models could not only solve math problems, but also recognize when they're stuck, identify what they're missing, and come up with a plan to get unstuck.
This is important because it could help us better understand the capabilities of large language models and how they could be used for more complex cognitive tasks, beyond just natural language processing. If LLMs can demonstrate "metacognitive" abilities - the ability to think about their own thinking - it could open up new possibilities for how we use these powerful AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper describes a series of experiments designed to assess the metacognitive capabilities of LLMs in the context of mathematical problem-solving. The researchers used a diverse set of math problems, ranging from algebra to calculus, and evaluated the models' performance in several key areas:
- Problem-Solving Ability: Can the LLMs correctly solve the given math problems?
- Metacognitive Awareness: Can the LLMs identify when they are stuck or unsure about a problem, and articulate why?
- Metacognitive Strategies: Can the LLMs propose specific steps or approaches to overcome challenges and make progress on the problem?
The experiments involved both open-ended prompts, where the models were asked to solve problems and explain their reasoning, as well as more guided prompts, where the models were explicitly asked to reflect on their own problem-solving process.
The results of the study provide insights into the strengths and limitations of LLMs when it comes to mathematical reasoning and metacognitive abilities. While the models demonstrated some promising capabilities, the researchers also identified areas for improvement, such as addressing compositional deficiencies and enhancing the models' ability to systematically apply mathematical concepts.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thoughtful and nuanced analysis of the metacognitive capabilities of LLMs in the context of mathematical problem-solving. The researchers acknowledge the limitations of the current study, such as the relatively small sample size and the potential for biases in the model training data.
One potential concern raised in the paper is the issue of "generative AI as a metacognitive agent", where the models may exhibit apparent metacognitive abilities that are actually the result of memorized patterns or surface-level heuristics, rather than true reasoning capabilities.
The researchers also highlight the need for further research to better understand the underlying mechanisms and limitations of LLMs' metacognitive abilities. Exploring ways to enhance the models' systematic and deductive reasoning could be a fruitful area for future work.
Conclusion
This paper represents an important step in understanding the cognitive capabilities of large language models beyond traditional language tasks. By exploring the metacognitive abilities of LLMs in mathematical problem-solving, the researchers have shed light on the potential and limitations of these models for more complex cognitive challenges.
The findings suggest that LLMs can exhibit some promising metacognitive abilities, but also highlight the need for further research and development to fully realize the potential of these systems. As the field of AI continues to advance, studies like this will be crucial in guiding the responsible and effective deployment of these powerful 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
1
Metacognitive Capabilities of LLMs: An Exploration in Mathematical Problem Solving
Aniket Didolkar, Anirudh Goyal, Nan Rosemary Ke, Siyuan Guo, Michal Valko, Timothy Lillicrap, Danilo Rezende, Yoshua Bengio, Michael Mozer, Sanjeev Arora
Metacognitive knowledge refers to humans' intuitive knowledge of their own thinking and reasoning processes. Today's best LLMs clearly possess some reasoning processes. The paper gives evidence that they also have metacognitive knowledge, including ability to name skills and procedures to apply given a task. We explore this primarily in context of math reasoning, developing a prompt-guided interaction procedure to get a powerful LLM to assign sensible skill labels to math questions, followed by having it perform semantic clustering to obtain coarser families of skill labels. These coarse skill labels look interpretable to humans. To validate that these skill labels are meaningful and relevant to the LLM's reasoning processes we perform the following experiments. (a) We ask GPT-4 to assign skill labels to training questions in math datasets GSM8K and MATH. (b) When using an LLM to solve the test questions, we present it with the full list of skill labels and ask it to identify the skill needed. Then it is presented with randomly selected exemplar solved questions associated with that skill label. This improves accuracy on GSM8k and MATH for several strong LLMs, including code-assisted models. The methodology presented is domain-agnostic, even though this article applies it to math problems.
Read more5/21/2024
0
Caught in the Quicksand of Reasoning, Far from AGI Summit: Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions
Pengfei Hong, Navonil Majumder, Deepanway Ghosal, Somak Aditya, Rada Mihalcea, Soujanya Poria
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased striking results on existing logical reasoning benchmarks, with some models even surpassing human performance. However, the true depth of their competencies and robustness in reasoning tasks remains an open question. To this end, in this paper, we focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. Particularly, we introduce: (i) a general ontology of perturbations for maths and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets, MORE and CORE, respectively, of perturbed maths and coding problems to probe the limits of LLM capabilities in numeric reasoning and coding tasks. Through comprehensive evaluations of both closed-source and open-source LLMs, we show a significant performance drop across all the models against the perturbed questions, suggesting that the current LLMs lack robust problem solving skills and structured reasoning abilities in many areas, as defined by our ontology. We open source the datasets and source codes at: https://github.com/declare-lab/llm_robustness.
Read more6/28/2024
0
Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning: Progresses and Challenges
Janice Ahn, Rishu Verma, Renze Lou, Di Liu, Rui Zhang, Wenpeng Yin
Mathematical reasoning serves as a cornerstone for assessing the fundamental cognitive capabilities of human intelligence. In recent times, there has been a notable surge in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) geared towards the automated resolution of mathematical problems. However, the landscape of mathematical problem types is vast and varied, with LLM-oriented techniques undergoing evaluation across diverse datasets and settings. This diversity makes it challenging to discern the true advancements and obstacles within this burgeoning field. This survey endeavors to address four pivotal dimensions: i) a comprehensive exploration of the various mathematical problems and their corresponding datasets that have been investigated; ii) an examination of the spectrum of LLM-oriented techniques that have been proposed for mathematical problem-solving; iii) an overview of factors and concerns affecting LLMs in solving math; and iv) an elucidation of the persisting challenges within this domain. To the best of our knowledge, this survey stands as one of the first extensive examinations of the landscape of LLMs in the realm of mathematics, providing a holistic perspective on the current state, accomplishments, and future challenges in this rapidly evolving field.
Read more9/18/2024
🛸
0
AI-Assisted Generation of Difficult Math Questions
Vedant Shah, Dingli Yu, Kaifeng Lyu, Simon Park, Nan Rosemary Ke, Michael Mozer, Yoshua Bengio, Sanjeev Arora, Anirudh Goyal
Current LLM training positions mathematical reasoning as a core capability. With publicly available sources fully tapped, there is unmet demand for diverse and challenging math questions. Relying solely on human experts is both time-consuming and costly, while LLM-generated questions often lack the requisite diversity and difficulty. We present a design framework that combines the strengths of LLMs with a human-in-the-loop approach to generate a diverse array of challenging math questions. We leverage LLM metacognition skills [Didolkar et al., 2024] of a strong LLM to extract core skills from existing math datasets. These skills serve as the basis for generating novel and difficult questions by prompting the LLM with random pairs of core skills. The use of two different skills within each question makes finding such questions an out of distribution task for both LLMs and humans. Our pipeline employs LLMs to iteratively generate and refine questions and solutions through multiturn prompting. Human annotators then verify and further refine the questions, with their efficiency enhanced via further LLM interactions. Applying this pipeline on skills extracted from the MATH dataset [Hendrycks et al., 2021] resulted in MATH$^2$ - a dataset of higher-quality math questions, as evidenced by: (a) Lower performance of all models on MATH$^2$ than on MATH (b) Higher performance on MATH when using MATH$^2$ questions as in-context examples. Although focused on mathematics, our methodology seems applicable to other domains requiring structured reasoning, and potentially as a component of scalable oversight. Also of interest is a striking relationship observed between models' performance on the new dataset: the success rate on MATH$^2$ is the square on MATH, suggesting that successfully solving the question in MATH$^2$ requires a nontrivial combination of two distinct math skills.
Read more9/4/2024