Seemingly Plausible Distractors in Multi-Hop Reasoning: Are Large Language Models Attentive Readers?

Overview

• State-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of a wide range of tasks, including reading comprehension, advanced math, reasoning, and scientific knowledge.
• This paper focuses on the multi-hop reasoning capability of LLMs, which is the ability to identify and integrate information from multiple textual sources.
• The paper investigates whether LLMs are prone to exploiting simplifying cues in existing multi-hop reasoning benchmarks, which could allow them to circumvent the actual reasoning requirement.

Plain English Explanation

The paper explores the multi-hop reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art large language models. Multi-hop reasoning is the skill to identify and combine information from multiple sources to arrive at an answer. This is a challenging task that requires advanced reasoning skills.

The researchers were concerned that existing benchmarks for testing multi-hop reasoning may contain simplifying cues that allow language models to find the answer without truly engaging in multi-hop reasoning. They wanted to investigate whether modern LLMs are also susceptible to exploiting these cues, similar to their fine-tuned pre-trained language model (PLM) predecessors.

To address this, the researchers developed a new, more challenging multi-hop reasoning benchmark. This benchmark presents seemingly plausible multi-hop reasoning chains that ultimately lead to incorrect answers. By evaluating multiple state-of-the-art LLMs on this new benchmark, the researchers found that the models' performance suffered, with up to a 45% relative decrease in F1 score. This suggests that misleading reasoning paths pose a significant challenge for these advanced language models, even if they are able to ignore misleading lexical cues.

Technical Explanation

The paper investigates the multi-hop reasoning capability of state-of-the-art LLMs. Multi-hop reasoning is the ability to identify and integrate information from multiple textual sources to arrive at an answer.

Concerned about the presence of simplifying cues in existing multi-hop reasoning benchmarks, the researchers set out to explore whether LLMs are prone to exploiting these cues to circumvent the actual reasoning requirement. They found that LLMs do indeed circumvent the multi-hop reasoning requirement, but in more subtle ways than their fine-tuned PLM predecessors.

Motivated by this finding, the researchers proposed a new, challenging multi-hop reasoning benchmark. This benchmark generates seemingly plausible multi-hop reasoning chains that ultimately lead to incorrect answers.

The researchers evaluated multiple open and proprietary state-of-the-art LLMs on this new benchmark and found that their multi-hop reasoning performance was significantly affected, with up to a 45% relative decrease in F1 score when presented with the seemingly plausible alternatives. Their analysis showed that while LLMs tend to ignore misleading lexical cues, misleading reasoning paths present a significant challenge for these advanced language models.

Critical Analysis

The researchers raised valid concerns about the presence of simplifying cues in existing multi-hop reasoning benchmarks, which could allow language models to circumvent the actual reasoning requirement. Their development of a more challenging multi-hop reasoning benchmark is a valuable contribution to better understand the true multi-hop reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs.

However, the paper does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the underlying reasons why LLMs struggle with the misleading reasoning paths presented in the new benchmark. Further research is needed to explore the specific limitations and biases of these models when it comes to complex multi-hop reasoning tasks.

Additionally, the paper focuses on the performance of LLMs on this new benchmark, but does not explore potential strategies or approaches to improve their multi-hop reasoning abilities. Investigating methods to enhance the reasoning skills of these models could be a fruitful area for future research.

Conclusion

This paper highlights the multi-hop reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs and the challenges they face when presented with seemingly plausible but ultimately incorrect reasoning paths. The development of a more challenging multi-hop reasoning benchmark is a valuable contribution to the field, as it helps to better understand the limitations of these advanced language models.

While LLMs have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a range of tasks, this research suggests that their multi-hop reasoning skills are still an area for improvement. Continued advancements in this area could have significant implications for the real-world application of these language models in domains that require complex reasoning and integration of information from multiple sources.