Missed Connections: Lateral Thinking Puzzles for Large Language Models
2404.11730
0
0
Abstract
The Connections puzzle published each day by the New York Times tasks players with dividing a bank of sixteen words into four groups of four words that each relate to a common theme. Solving the puzzle requires both common linguistic knowledge (i.e. definitions and typical usage) as well as, in many cases, lateral or abstract thinking. This is because the four categories ascend in complexity, with the most challenging category often requiring thinking about words in uncommon ways or as parts of larger phrases. We investigate the capacity for automated AI systems to play Connections and explore the game's potential as an automated benchmark for abstract reasoning and a way to measure the semantic information encoded by data-driven linguistic systems. In particular, we study both a sentence-embedding baseline and modern large language models (LLMs). We report their accuracy on the task, measure the impacts of chain-of-thought prompting, and discuss their failure modes. Overall, we find that the Connections task is challenging yet feasible, and a strong test-bed for future work.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of "Missed Connections" - lateral thinking puzzles - to evaluate and enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models.
- The researchers developed a dataset of these puzzles and used it to assess the performance of state-of-the-art language models.
- The findings suggest that language models struggle with certain types of lateral thinking and offer insights into their strengths and weaknesses in this area.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at using a specific type of puzzle, called "Missed Connections," to test and improve the reasoning skills of large language models - AI systems that are trained on vast amounts of text data to understand and generate human language.
These "Missed Connections" puzzles require a certain kind of lateral, or nonlinear, thinking to solve. The researchers created a dataset of these puzzles and had various language models try to solve them. They found that while the models performed well on some types of questions, they struggled with the more complex, lateral thinking required for other puzzles.
The goal was to gain insights into the limitations of current language models and identify ways to enhance their reasoning abilities. By using this specialized puzzle dataset, the researchers could pinpoint specific areas where the models faltered, which could then inform future model development and training.
Overall, this work provides a novel approach to evaluating and improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models, which are becoming increasingly important as AI systems take on more complex tasks.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a new evaluation framework for assessing the reasoning abilities of large language models, using "Missed Connections" - a type of lateral thinking puzzle. The researchers created a dataset of these puzzles and tested the performance of state-of-the-art language models, such as GPT-3 and T5, on solving them.
The Missed Connections puzzles require a nonlinear, creative thought process to connect seemingly unrelated concepts. This contrasts with the more straightforward, associative reasoning that language models often excel at. By evaluating model performance on this specialized task, the researchers aimed to gain insights into the models' strengths and weaknesses in terms of lateral thinking and reasoning.
The paper also explores methods for improving the reasoning abilities of language models, such as through fine-tuning on the Missed Connections dataset or incorporating additional training on logical reasoning and mathematical reasoning tasks.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution by introducing a novel evaluation framework for assessing the reasoning capabilities of large language models. The use of Missed Connections puzzles offers a unique challenge that goes beyond the typical language understanding tasks that these models are often tested on.
However, the paper acknowledges that the Missed Connections dataset, while carefully curated, may not fully capture the breadth of lateral thinking required in real-world scenarios. There may be other types of puzzles or tasks that could further stress-test the models' reasoning abilities.
Additionally, the paper focuses mainly on evaluating existing language models, but does not delve deeply into the specific architectural or training modifications that could be implemented to enhance their performance on lateral thinking tasks. More research is needed to explore effective techniques for improving the reasoning skills of these models.
Overall, this paper represents an important step in pushing the boundaries of language model evaluation and highlighting the need for continued advancements in the area of general reasoning and intelligence within AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a novel approach to evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models using "Missed Connections" - a type of lateral thinking puzzle. The researchers found that while these models excel at certain language understanding tasks, they struggle with the more complex, nonlinear reasoning required to solve the Missed Connections puzzles.
The findings highlight the need for continued research and development to enhance the reasoning abilities of language models, which are becoming increasingly important as AI systems take on more complex and open-ended tasks. By using specialized evaluation frameworks like the one presented in this paper, researchers can gain valuable insights to inform the design and training of more capable and well-rounded AI systems.
Overall, this work represents an important step forward in pushing the boundaries of language model evaluation and paves the way for future advancements in the field of artificial general intelligence.
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
Connecting the Dots: Evaluating Abstract Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs Using the New York Times Connections Word Game
Prisha Samadarshi, Mariam Mustafa, Anushka Kulkarni, Raven Rothkopf, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Smaranda Muresan
0
0
The New York Times Connections game has emerged as a popular and challenging pursuit for word puzzle enthusiasts. We collect 200 Connections games to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) against expert and novice human players. Our results show that even the best-performing LLM, GPT-4o, which has otherwise shown impressive reasoning abilities on a wide variety of benchmarks, can only fully solve 8% of the games. Compared to GPT-4o, novice and expert players perform better, with expert human players significantly outperforming GPT-4o. To deepen our understanding we create a taxonomy of the knowledge types required to successfully categorize words in the Connections game, revealing that LLMs struggle with associative, encyclopedic, and linguistic knowledge. Our findings establish the New York Times Connections game as a challenging benchmark for evaluating abstract reasoning capabilities in humans and AI systems.
6/26/2024
💬
Puzzle Solving using Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Survey
Panagiotis Giadikiaroglou, Maria Lymperaiou, Giorgos Filandrianos, Giorgos Stamou
0
0
Exploring the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in puzzle solving unveils critical insights into their potential and challenges in AI, marking a significant step towards understanding their applicability in complex reasoning tasks. This survey leverages a unique taxonomy -- dividing puzzles into rule-based and rule-less categories -- to critically assess LLMs through various methodologies, including prompting techniques, neuro-symbolic approaches, and fine-tuning. Through a critical review of relevant datasets and benchmarks, we assess LLMs' performance, identifying significant challenges in complex puzzle scenarios. Our findings highlight the disparity between LLM capabilities and human-like reasoning, particularly in those requiring advanced logical inference. The survey underscores the necessity for novel strategies and richer datasets to advance LLMs' puzzle-solving proficiency and contribute to AI's logical reasoning and creative problem-solving advancements.
4/23/2024
Language Models are Crossword Solvers
Soumadeep Saha, Sutanoya Chakraborty, Saptarshi Saha, Utpal Garain
0
0
Crosswords are a form of word puzzle that require a solver to demonstrate a high degree of proficiency in natural language understanding, wordplay, reasoning, and world knowledge, along with adherence to character and length constraints. In this paper we tackle the challenge of solving crosswords with Large Language Models (LLMs). We demonstrate that the current generation of state-of-the art (SoTA) language models show significant competence at deciphering cryptic crossword clues, and outperform previously reported SoTA results by a factor of 2-3 in relevant benchmarks. We also develop a search algorithm that builds off this performance to tackle the problem of solving full crossword grids with LLMs for the very first time, achieving an accuracy of 93% on New York Times crossword puzzles. Contrary to previous work in this area which concluded that LLMs lag human expert performance significantly, our research suggests this gap is a lot narrower.
6/18/2024
🏷️
SemEval-2024 Task 9: BRAINTEASER: A Novel Task Defying Common Sense
Yifan Jiang, Filip Ilievski, Kaixin Ma
0
0
While vertical thinking relies on logical and commonsense reasoning, lateral thinking requires systems to defy commonsense associations and overwrite them through unconventional thinking. Lateral thinking has been shown to be challenging for current models but has received little attention. A recent benchmark, BRAINTEASER, aims to evaluate current models' lateral thinking ability in a zero-shot setting. In this paper, we split the original benchmark to also support fine-tuning setting and present SemEval Task 9: BRAIN-TEASER(S), the first task at this competition designed to test the system's reasoning and lateral thinking ability. As a popular task, BRAINTEASER(S)'s two subtasks receive 483 team submissions from 182 participants during the competition. This paper provides a fine-grained system analysis of the competition results, together with a reflection on what this means for the ability of the systems to reason laterally. We hope that the BRAINTEASER(S) subtasks and findings in this paper can stimulate future work on lateral thinking and robust reasoning by computational models.
4/26/2024