Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Geometric Perspective
144
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores a geometric perspective on the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs).
- It investigates how the input space of LLMs is partitioned and how this partitioning affects their expressive power and reasoning abilities.
- The paper also discusses the implications of this geometric view for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 and BERT have shown impressive language understanding and generation capabilities. However, their reasoning abilities are still limited. This paper looks at LLMs from a geometric perspective to understand how their internal structure and representations affect their reasoning skills.
The key idea is that the input space of an LLM - the space of all possible inputs it can process - is partitioned into regions. Each region corresponds to a different type of reasoning or task that the model can perform. The size and shape of these regions determine the model's expressive power and the types of reasoning it can engage in.
For example, an LLM may be very good at answering factual questions but struggle with open-ended reasoning tasks. This is because the regions in its input space that correspond to factual question-answering are larger and more well-defined, while the regions for open-ended reasoning are more amorphous and difficult for the model to navigate.
By understanding this geometric view of LLM input spaces, researchers can work on ways to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models. This could involve techniques like expanding the size and shape of the reasoning regions or introducing new computational primitives to enable more complex reasoning.
Ultimately, this geometric perspective offers a novel way to think about the capabilities and limitations of large language models, with the goal of creating models that can truly generate new knowledge and engage in sophisticated mathematical and scientific reasoning.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by considering the input space of a large language model - the space of all possible inputs (e.g., text sequences) that the model can process. The authors argue that this input space is partitioned into different regions, each corresponding to a different type of reasoning or task that the model can perform.
The size and shape of these regions determine the model's expressive power and the types of reasoning it can engage in. For example, a model may have large, well-defined regions for factual question-answering, but more amorphous regions for open-ended reasoning tasks.
The authors then explore how this geometric perspective can be used to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. One approach is to expand the size and shape of the reasoning regions by introducing new training data or architectural modifications. Another approach is to introduce new computational primitives that allow the model to engage in more complex forms of reasoning.
The paper also discusses the implications of this geometric view for the ability of LLMs to create new knowledge and reason about mathematical and scientific concepts. By understanding the structure of the input space, researchers can work towards developing LLMs that can truly engage in sophisticated reasoning and knowledge generation.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a novel and insightful geometric perspective on the reasoning capabilities of large language models. The authors make a compelling case that the partitioning of the input space is a key factor in determining the types of reasoning that LLMs can perform.
However, the paper does not delve into the specific mechanisms or algorithms that underlie this input space partitioning. It would be helpful to have a more detailed understanding of how the regions are formed and how they can be modified or expanded.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential challenges or limitations of this geometric approach. For example, it is not clear how this view scales to the immense complexity of modern LLMs or how it can be applied to more specialized tasks and domains.
Further research is needed to fully explore the practical implications of this geometric perspective and to develop concrete techniques for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models. Nevertheless, this paper represents an important step towards a more nuanced understanding of LLM behavior and paves the way for future advancements in this rapidly evolving field.
Conclusion
This paper presents a geometric perspective on the reasoning capabilities of large language models, arguing that the partitioning of the input space into different regions is a key factor in determining the types of reasoning that LLMs can perform.
By understanding this geometric view, researchers can work on enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs through techniques like expanding the size and shape of the reasoning regions and introducing new computational primitives. This could ultimately lead to the development of LLMs that can create new knowledge and engage in sophisticated mathematical and scientific reasoning.
While the paper raises some unanswered questions, it represents an important step towards a more nuanced understanding of the inner workings of large language models and their potential for advanced reasoning capabilities.
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
144
Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Geometric Perspective
Romain Cosentino, Sarath Shekkizhar
The advancement of large language models (LLMs) for real-world applications hinges critically on enhancing their reasoning capabilities. In this work, we explore the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through their geometrical understanding. We establish a connection between the expressive power of LLMs and the density of their self-attention graphs. Our analysis demonstrates that the density of these graphs defines the intrinsic dimension of the inputs to the MLP blocks. We demonstrate through theoretical analysis and toy examples that a higher intrinsic dimension implies a greater expressive capacity of the LLM. We further provide empirical evidence linking this geometric framework to recent advancements in methods aimed at enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
Read more7/4/2024
💬
0
Characterizing Large Language Model Geometry Helps Solve Toxicity Detection and Generation
Randall Balestriero, Romain Cosentino, Sarath Shekkizhar
Large Language Models (LLMs) drive current AI breakthroughs despite very little being known about their internal representations. In this work, we propose to shed the light on LLMs inner mechanisms through the lens of geometry. In particular, we develop in closed form $(i)$ the intrinsic dimension in which the Multi-Head Attention embeddings are constrained to exist and $(ii)$ the partition and per-region affine mappings of the feedforward (MLP) network of LLMs' layers. Our theoretical findings further enable the design of novel principled solutions applicable to state-of-the-art LLMs. First, we show that, through our geometric understanding, we can bypass LLMs' RLHF protection by controlling the embedding's intrinsic dimension through informed prompt manipulation. Second, we derive interpretable geometrical features that can be extracted from any (pre-trained) LLM, providing a rich abstract representation of their inputs. We observe that these features are sufficient to help solve toxicity detection, and even allow the identification of various types of toxicity. Our results demonstrate how, even in large-scale regimes, exact theoretical results can answer practical questions in LLMs. Code: https://github.com/RandallBalestriero/SplineLLM
Read more7/12/2024
💬
0
GraphReason: Enhancing Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models through A Graph-Based Verification Approach
Lang Cao
Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased impressive reasoning capabilities, particularly when guided by specifically designed prompts in complex reasoning tasks such as math word problems. These models typically solve tasks using a chain-of-thought approach, which not only bolsters their reasoning abilities but also provides valuable insights into their problem-solving process. However, there is still significant room for enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Some studies suggest that the integration of an LLM output verifier can boost reasoning accuracy without necessitating additional model training. In this paper, we follow these studies and introduce a novel graph-based method to further augment the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We posit that multiple solutions to a reasoning task, generated by an LLM, can be represented as a reasoning graph due to the logical connections between intermediate steps from different reasoning paths. Therefore, we propose the Reasoning Graph Verifier (GraphReason) to analyze and verify the solutions generated by LLMs. By evaluating these graphs, models can yield more accurate and reliable results.Our experimental results show that our graph-based verification method not only significantly enhances the reasoning abilities of LLMs but also outperforms existing verifier methods in terms of improving these models' reasoning performance.
Read more4/23/2024
💬
0
Can Large Language Models put 2 and 2 together? Probing for Entailed Arithmetical Relationships
D. Panas, S. Seth, V. Belle
Two major areas of interest in the era of Large Language Models regard questions of what do LLMs know, and if and how they may be able to reason (or rather, approximately reason). Since to date these lines of work progressed largely in parallel (with notable exceptions), we are interested in investigating the intersection: probing for reasoning about the implicitly-held knowledge. Suspecting the performance to be lacking in this area, we use a very simple set-up of comparisons between cardinalities associated with elements of various subjects (e.g. the number of legs a bird has versus the number of wheels on a tricycle). We empirically demonstrate that although LLMs make steady progress in knowledge acquisition and (pseudo)reasoning with each new GPT release, their capabilities are limited to statistical inference only. It is difficult to argue that pure statistical learning can cope with the combinatorial explosion inherent in many commonsense reasoning tasks, especially once arithmetical notions are involved. Further, we argue that bigger is not always better and chasing purely statistical improvements is flawed at the core, since it only exacerbates the dangerous conflation of the production of correct answers with genuine reasoning ability.
Read more5/1/2024