Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement
0
🧪
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the inductive reasoning capabilities of language models (LMs), which is the ability to derive underlying principles from limited observations and apply them to new situations.
- The researchers used a technique called "iterative hypothesis refinement" to study LMs' inductive reasoning, which involves proposing, selecting, and refining textual rules.
- The study found that while LMs are skilled at proposing candidate rules, they struggle to apply the rules they generate, suggesting a discrepancy between rule induction and rule application.
- The paper also reveals several differences between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potential and limitations of using LMs for inductive reasoning tasks.
Plain English Explanation
Humans have a remarkable ability to learn from a few examples and then apply that knowledge to new situations. This is called inductive reasoning. In this paper, the researchers wanted to understand how well language models (LMs) can do this type of reasoning.
The researchers used a special technique called "iterative hypothesis refinement" to study LMs' inductive reasoning skills. This approach involves three steps: first, the LM proposes some possible rules or principles that could explain the examples. Then, the researchers select the most promising rules. Finally, they refine the rules to make them better.
The study found that LMs are really good at the first step - proposing candidate rules. They can come up with lots of interesting ideas. However, the researchers also discovered that LMs struggle with the second step - applying the rules they propose. They don't seem to fully understand the rules they generate.
This suggests that while LMs can be creative idea generators, they may not actually comprehend the underlying principles in the same way humans do. The paper reveals key differences between how LMs and humans reason inductively. Understanding these differences is important for figuring out how to best use LMs for tasks that require this type of flexible, generalizable reasoning.
Technical Explanation
The researchers used a technique called "iterative hypothesis refinement" to study the inductive reasoning capabilities of language models (LMs). This approach involves a three-step process:
- Proposing Hypotheses: The LM generates candidate rules or principles that could explain the provided examples.
- Selecting Hypotheses: The researchers select the most promising hypotheses from the LM's proposals.
- Refining Hypotheses: The selected hypotheses are further refined to improve their accuracy and generalizability.
By examining the intermediate rules generated during this process, the researchers made several key observations:
- LMs are phenomenal at the first step, proposing a wide variety of candidate rules that could potentially explain the given data.
- However, when coupled with a symbolic interpreter that can systematically filter and apply the proposed rules, the hybrid approach achieves strong results on inductive reasoning benchmarks.
- This suggests that LMs are adept at rule induction - identifying plausible rules from limited observations.
- But they struggle with rule application - actually applying the generated rules to new instances.
Through further empirical and human analyses, the researchers revealed several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans. This sheds light on both the potential and limitations of using LMs for tasks that require flexible, generalizable reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a nuanced and well-designed study of LMs' inductive reasoning capabilities. The researchers' use of iterative hypothesis refinement is a thoughtful approach that more closely mirrors the human inductive process, compared to standard input-output prompting.
However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For example, the researchers note that their findings may be specific to the particular benchmarks and LM architectures tested, and that more work is needed to understand the generalizability of these results.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying reasons for the observed discrepancies between LMs' rule induction and rule application abilities. More research is needed to fully explain these differences and develop strategies to address them.
The critical analysis could also be strengthened by considering potential alternative interpretations or counterarguments to the researchers' conclusions. For instance, are there other ways to conceptualize the relationship between rule induction and rule application in LMs?
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of LMs' inductive reasoning capabilities, but there remains much to explore in this important area of research.
Conclusion
This paper presents a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of language models (LMs) using an iterative hypothesis refinement approach. The key findings are:
- LMs are skilled at proposing a wide range of candidate rules that could explain the given data, suggesting strong rule induction abilities.
- However, LMs struggle with applying the rules they generate, revealing a discrepancy between rule induction and rule application.
- The study also uncovers notable differences between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs for tasks that require flexible, generalizable reasoning.
These insights are valuable for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of current language models, as well as informing future research and development efforts to build more robust and human-like reasoning capabilities in AI systems.
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
Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement
Linlu Qiu, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Valentina Pyatkin, Chandra Bhagavatula, Bailin Wang, Yoon Kim, Yejin Choi, Nouha Dziri, Xiang Ren
The ability to derive underlying principles from a handful of observations and then generalize to novel situations -- known as inductive reasoning -- is central to human intelligence. Prior work suggests that language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of LMs through iterative hypothesis refinement, a technique that more closely mirrors the human inductive process than standard input-output prompting. Iterative hypothesis refinement employs a three-step process: proposing, selecting, and refining hypotheses in the form of textual rules. By examining the intermediate rules, we observe that LMs are phenomenal hypothesis proposers (i.e., generating candidate rules), and when coupled with a (task-specific) symbolic interpreter that is able to systematically filter the proposed set of rules, this hybrid approach achieves strong results across inductive reasoning benchmarks that require inducing causal relations, language-like instructions, and symbolic concepts. However, they also behave as puzzling inductive reasoners, showing notable performance gaps between rule induction (i.e., identifying plausible rules) and rule application (i.e., applying proposed rules to instances), suggesting that LMs are proposing hypotheses without being able to actually apply the rules. Through empirical and human analyses, we further reveal several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs in inductive reasoning tasks.
Read more5/24/2024
💬
0
Hypothesis Search: Inductive Reasoning with Language Models
Ruocheng Wang, Eric Zelikman, Gabriel Poesia, Yewen Pu, Nick Haber, Noah D. Goodman
Inductive reasoning is a core problem-solving capacity: humans can identify underlying principles from a few examples, which robustly generalize to novel scenarios. Recent work evaluates large language models (LLMs) on inductive reasoning tasks by directly prompting them yielding in context learning. This works well for straightforward inductive tasks but performs poorly on complex tasks such as the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC). In this work, we propose to improve the inductive reasoning ability of LLMs by generating explicit hypotheses at multiple levels of abstraction: we prompt the LLM to propose multiple abstract hypotheses about the problem, in natural language, then implement the natural language hypotheses as concrete Python programs. These programs can be verified by running on observed examples and generalized to novel inputs. To reduce the hypothesis search space, we explore steps to filter the set of hypotheses to implement: we either ask the LLM to summarize them into a smaller set of hypotheses or ask human annotators to select a subset. We verify our pipeline's effectiveness on the ARC visual inductive reasoning benchmark, its variant 1D-ARC, string transformation dataset SyGuS, and list transformation dataset List Functions. On a random 100-problem subset of ARC, our automated pipeline using LLM summaries achieves 30% accuracy, outperforming the direct prompting baseline (accuracy of 17%). With the minimal human input of selecting from LLM-generated candidates, performance is boosted to 33%. Our ablations show that both abstract hypothesis generation and concrete program representations benefit LLMs on inductive reasoning tasks.
Read more6/3/2024
0
Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reasoning Abilities of LLMs
Kewei Cheng, Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Zhengyang Wang, Binxuan Huang, Ruirui Li, Shiyang Li, Zheng Li, Yifan Gao, Xian Li, Bing Yin, Yizhou Sun
Reasoning encompasses two typical types: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Despite extensive research into the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), most studies have failed to rigorously differentiate between inductive and deductive reasoning, leading to a blending of the two. This raises an essential question: In LLM reasoning, which poses a greater challenge - deductive or inductive reasoning? While the deductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs, (i.e. their capacity to follow instructions in reasoning tasks), have received considerable attention, their abilities in true inductive reasoning remain largely unexplored. To investigate into the true inductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs, we propose a novel framework, SolverLearner. This framework enables LLMs to learn the underlying function (i.e., $y = f_w(x)$), that maps input data points $(x)$ to their corresponding output values $(y)$, using only in-context examples. By focusing on inductive reasoning and separating it from LLM-based deductive reasoning, we can isolate and investigate inductive reasoning of LLMs in its pure form via SolverLearner. Our observations reveal that LLMs demonstrate remarkable inductive reasoning capabilities through SolverLearner, achieving near-perfect performance with ACC of 1 in most cases. Surprisingly, despite their strong inductive reasoning abilities, LLMs tend to relatively lack deductive reasoning capabilities, particularly in tasks involving ``counterfactual'' reasoning.
Read more8/9/2024
1
Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning
Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like $textit{supposition following}$ or $textit{chain construction}$. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model's accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.
Read more6/4/2024