On the Representational Capacity of Neural Language Models with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
2406.14197
0
0
š§
Abstract
The performance of modern language models (LMs) has been improved by chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, i.e., the process of generating intermediate results that guide the model towards a final answer. A possible explanation for this improvement is that CoT reasoning extends an LM's computational power, as RNNs and transformers with additional scratch space are known to be Turing complete. Comparing LMs to Turing machines, however, introduces a category error - Turing machines decide language membership, whereas LMs define distributions over strings. To bridge this gap, we formalize CoT reasoning in a probabilistic setting. We present several results on the representational capacity of recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning, showing that they can represent the same family of distributions over strings as probabilistic Turing machines.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Modern language models (LMs) have seen performance improvements through chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, which generates intermediate results to guide the model to a final answer.
- Comparing LMs to Turing machines raises a category error, as Turing machines decide language membership while LMs define distributions over strings.
- This paper aims to formalize CoT reasoning in a probabilistic setting and explore the representational capacity of recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning.
Plain English Explanation
Language models (LMs) are AI systems that can generate human-like text. Researchers have found that chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, where the model produces intermediate steps to reach a final answer, can improve the performance of these models.
One way to think about this is that the extra "scratch space" provided by CoT reasoning extends the computational power of the LM, similar to how Turing-complete systems with additional memory can solve more problems.
However, directly comparing LMs to Turing machines is problematic, as Turing machines are designed to determine whether a given string belongs to a language, while LMs are used to generate new strings that belong to a distribution of possible texts.
To better understand the relationship between LMs and Turing-like computation, this paper takes a probabilistic approach. It explores how recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning can represent the same family of probability distributions over strings as probabilistic Turing machines.
Technical Explanation
The paper formalizes the concept of CoT reasoning in a probabilistic setting. It presents several results on the representational capacity of recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning, showing that they can represent the same family of distributions over strings as probabilistic Turing machines.
The key insights are:
- Recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning can be viewed as probabilistic state machines that generate strings according to a probability distribution.
- This probabilistic state machine interpretation allows for a direct comparison to probabilistic Turing machines, which are known to be able to represent a wide range of probability distributions.
- The paper proves that recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning can represent the same family of distributions over strings as probabilistic Turing machines, bridging the gap between LMs and Turing-like computation.
These results shed light on the increased computational capabilities and reasoning abilities of LMs with CoT reasoning, and provide a formal foundation for understanding their faithfulness and limitations in terms of the probability distributions they can represent.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous mathematical framework for understanding the capabilities of LMs with CoT reasoning, but it also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research:
- The analysis focuses on the representational capacity of LMs, but does not address their sample complexity or the challenges of learning these representations from data.
- The comparison to probabilistic Turing machines is useful, but the practical implications for training and deploying LMs with CoT reasoning are not fully explored.
- The paper does not address the interpretability or transparency of CoT reasoning in LMs, which are important considerations for real-world applications.
Further research is needed to understand the practical implications of these theoretical results, as well as to explore the robustness and generalization of LMs with CoT reasoning in diverse settings.
Conclusion
This paper presents a formal, probabilistic framework for understanding the capabilities of language models (LMs) with chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. By bridging the gap between LMs and Turing-like computation, the authors show that recurrent and transformer LMs with CoT reasoning can represent the same family of probability distributions over strings as probabilistic Turing machines.
These insights shed light on the increased computational power and reasoning abilities of LMs with CoT, and provide a foundation for understanding their limitations and potential applications. As the field of large language models continues to evolve, this research highlights the importance of developing rigorous theoretical frameworks to better understand these powerful 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
š¤
How to think step-by-step: A mechanistic understanding of chain-of-thought reasoning
Subhabrata Dutta, Joykirat Singh, Soumen Chakrabarti, Tanmoy Chakraborty
0
0
Despite superior reasoning prowess demonstrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, a lack of understanding prevails around the internal mechanisms of the models that facilitate CoT generation. This work investigates the neural sub-structures within LLMs that manifest CoT reasoning from a mechanistic point of view. From an analysis of Llama-2 7B applied to multistep reasoning over fictional ontologies, we demonstrate that LLMs deploy multiple parallel pathways of answer generation for step-by-step reasoning. These parallel pathways provide sequential answers from the input question context as well as the generated CoT. We observe a functional rift in the middle layers of the LLM. Token representations in the initial half remain strongly biased towards the pretraining prior, with the in-context prior taking over in the later half. This internal phase shift manifests in different functional components: attention heads that write the answer token appear in the later half, attention heads that move information along ontological relationships appear in the initial half, and so on. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt towards mechanistic investigation of CoT reasoning in LLMs.
5/7/2024
š¬
Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, Hai Zhao, George Karypis, Alex Smola
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on complex reasoning by leveraging chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting to generate intermediate reasoning chains as the rationale to infer the answer. However, existing CoT studies have primarily focused on the language modality. We propose Multimodal-CoT that incorporates language (text) and vision (images) modalities into a two-stage framework that separates rationale generation and answer inference. In this way, answer inference can leverage better generated rationales that are based on multimodal information. Experimental results on ScienceQA and A-OKVQA benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed approach. With Multimodal-CoT, our model under 1 billion parameters achieves state-of-the-art performance on the ScienceQA benchmark. Our analysis indicates that Multimodal-CoT offers the advantages of mitigating hallucination and enhancing convergence speed. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/amazon-science/mm-cot.
5/21/2024
On the Empirical Complexity of Reasoning and Planning in LLMs
Liwei Kang, Zirui Zhao, David Hsu, Wee Sun Lee
0
0
Chain-of-thought (CoT), tree-of-thought (ToT), and related techniques work surprisingly well in practice for some complex reasoning tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs), but why? This work seeks the underlying reasons by conducting experimental case studies and linking the performance benefits to well-established sample and computational complexity principles in machine learning. We experimented with 6 reasoning tasks, ranging from grade school math, air travel planning, ..., to Blocksworld. The results suggest that (i) both CoT and ToT benefit significantly from task decomposition, which breaks a complex reasoning task into a sequence of steps with low sample complexity and explicitly outlines the reasoning structure, and (ii) for computationally hard reasoning tasks, the more sophisticated tree structure of ToT outperforms the linear structure of CoT. These findings provide useful guidelines for the use of LLM in solving reasoning tasks in practice.
6/19/2024
Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs
Minh-Vuong Nguyen, Linhao Luo, Fatemeh Shiri, Dinh Phung, Yuan-Fang Li, Thuy-Trang Vu, Gholamreza Haffari
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations alongside answers. However, previous research on evaluating LLMs has solely focused on answer accuracy, neglecting the correctness of the generated CoT. In this paper, we delve deeper into the CoT reasoning capabilities of LLMs in multi-hop question answering by utilizing knowledge graphs (KGs). We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT. Through experiments conducted on 5 different families of LLMs across 2 multi-hop question-answering datasets, we find that LLMs possess sufficient knowledge to perform reasoning. However, there exists a significant disparity between answer accuracy and faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs, indicating that they often arrive at correct answers through incorrect reasoning.
6/21/2024