To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Chain-of-thought (CoT) is a prompting technique that encourages language models to provide step-by-step reasoning for their outputs.
- This paper investigates when CoT is most helpful, finding it mainly benefits math and symbolic reasoning tasks.
- The authors provide a plain English explanation, technical details, and critical analysis of their findings.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the effectiveness of a technique called "chain-of-thought" (CoT) prompting. CoT encourages language models to explain their reasoning step-by-step instead of just providing a final answer.
The researchers found that CoT is particularly helpful for tasks involving math or symbolic reasoning, like solving equations or logical proofs. In these areas, the step-by-step explanations provided by CoT can make the model's thought process more transparent and lead to better performance.
However, the benefits of CoT were less clear for other types of language tasks, such as open-ended question answering or commonsense reasoning. For these tasks, the authors suggest the additional prompting overhead of CoT may outweigh the potential gains.
Overall, the study provides useful insights into when CoT prompting is most valuable and the tradeoffs involved in using this technique. The findings can help guide developers in deciding whether to incorporate CoT into their language model applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper evaluates the effectiveness of chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting across a variety of language tasks. CoT is a technique that encourages language models to provide step-by-step explanations for their outputs, rather than just returning a final answer.
To assess CoT, the authors conducted experiments on a suite of benchmark tasks, including math problem solving, logical reasoning, open-ended question answering, and commonsense reasoning. They compared the performance of language models using standard prompts versus CoT-enhanced prompts.
The results showed that CoT provided significant benefits for math and symbolic reasoning tasks, where the step-by-step explanations helped make the model's thought process more transparent and led to better solutions. However, the advantages of CoT were less clear for other types of language tasks, such as open-ended QA and commonsense reasoning.
The authors hypothesize that the additional cognitive load of generating CoT explanations may outweigh the potential gains for certain tasks. They also note that the effectiveness of CoT likely depends on the specific language model and task at hand.
Overall, the paper provides a nuanced understanding of when CoT prompting is most valuable and the tradeoffs involved in its use. These insights can help inform the development of more effective language model applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper offers a thoughtful exploration of the benefits and limitations of chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting for language models. The authors are careful to acknowledge the context-dependent nature of CoT's effectiveness, noting that the technique appears to be particularly helpful for math and symbolic reasoning tasks.
However, the paper could be strengthened by a more detailed discussion of the underlying reasons why CoT is less advantageous for other types of language tasks. The authors suggest the additional cognitive load may outweigh the benefits, but it would be helpful to see a more in-depth analysis of the specific mechanisms at play.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential for hybrid approaches, where CoT is selectively applied based on task characteristics. Such a nuanced application of CoT could unlock its benefits while mitigating the overhead for less suitable tasks.
Finally, the authors mention the importance of the language model itself in determining CoT's effectiveness, but do not delve into the specific model architectures or capabilities that may be most conducive to CoT. Exploring these model-level factors could provide valuable insights for future research and development.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of CoT prompting, but leaves room for further exploration of the underlying dynamics and potential optimization strategies.
Conclusion
This paper provides an insightful analysis of when chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is most effective for language models. The key finding is that CoT is particularly beneficial for tasks involving math and symbolic reasoning, where the step-by-step explanations can improve transparency and performance.
However, the authors also note that the advantages of CoT are less clear for other language tasks, such as open-ended question answering and commonsense reasoning. This suggests the additional cognitive load of generating CoT explanations may outweigh the potential gains in certain contexts.
The paper offers a nuanced perspective on the tradeoffs involved in using CoT prompting, which can help guide developers in deciding whether to incorporate this technique into their language model applications. The insights provided lay the groundwork for further research into optimizing the use of CoT and exploring hybrid approaches that selectively apply the technique based on task characteristics.
Overall, this work contributes to a deeper understanding of how language models can be prompted to provide more transparent and effective reasoning, with important implications for the development of more capable and trustworthy 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
New!To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning
Zayne Sprague, Fangcong Yin, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Dongwei Jiang, Manya Wadhwa, Prasann Singhal, Xinyu Zhao, Xi Ye, Kyle Mahowald, Greg Durrett
Chain-of-thought (CoT) via prompting is the de facto method for eliciting reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). But for what kinds of tasks is this extra ``thinking'' really helpful? To analyze this, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis covering over 100 papers using CoT and ran our own evaluations of 20 datasets across 14 models. Our results show that CoT gives strong performance benefits primarily on tasks involving math or logic, with much smaller gains on other types of tasks. On MMLU, directly generating the answer without CoT leads to almost identical accuracy as CoT unless the question or model's response contains an equals sign, indicating symbolic operations and reasoning. Following this finding, we analyze the behavior of CoT on these problems by separating planning and execution and comparing against tool-augmented LLMs. Much of CoT's gain comes from improving symbolic execution, but it underperforms relative to using a symbolic solver. Our results indicate that CoT can be applied selectively, maintaining performance while saving inference costs. Furthermore, they suggest a need to move beyond prompt-based CoT to new paradigms that better leverage intermediate computation across the whole range of LLM applications.
Read more9/19/2024
🌿
65
Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting
Xuezhi Wang, Denny Zhou
In enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), prior research primarily focuses on specific prompting techniques such as few-shot or zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. These methods, while effective, often involve manually intensive prompt engineering. Our study takes a novel approach by asking: Can LLMs reason effectively without prompting? Our findings reveal that, intriguingly, CoT reasoning paths can be elicited from pre-trained LLMs by simply altering the textit{decoding} process. Rather than conventional greedy decoding, we investigate the top-$k$ alternative tokens, uncovering that CoT paths are frequently inherent in these sequences. This approach not only bypasses the confounders of prompting but also allows us to assess the LLMs' textit{intrinsic} reasoning abilities. Moreover, we observe that the presence of a CoT in the decoding path correlates with a higher confidence in the model's decoded answer. This confidence metric effectively differentiates between CoT and non-CoT paths. Extensive empirical studies on various reasoning benchmarks show that the proposed CoT-decoding effectively elicits reasoning capabilities from language models, which were previously obscured by standard greedy decoding.
Read more5/27/2024
📉
1
Faithful Logical Reasoning via Symbolic Chain-of-Thought
Jundong Xu, Hao Fei, Liangming Pan, Qian Liu, Mong-Li Lee, Wynne Hsu
While the recent Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique enhances the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) with the theory of mind, it might still struggle in handling logical reasoning that relies much on symbolic expressions and rigid deducing rules. To strengthen the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a novel Symbolic Chain-of-Thought, namely SymbCoT, a fully LLM-based framework that integrates symbolic expressions and logic rules with CoT prompting. Technically, building upon an LLM, SymbCoT 1) first translates the natural language context into the symbolic format, and then 2) derives a step-by-step plan to solve the problem with symbolic logical rules, 3) followed by a verifier to check the translation and reasoning chain. Via thorough evaluations on 5 standard datasets with both First-Order Logic and Constraint Optimization symbolic expressions, SymbCoT shows striking improvements over the CoT method consistently, meanwhile refreshing the current state-of-the-art performances. We further demonstrate that our system advances in more faithful, flexible, and explainable logical reasoning. To our knowledge, this is the first to combine symbolic expressions and rules into CoT for logical reasoning with LLMs. Code is open at https://github.com/Aiden0526/SymbCoT.
Read more6/12/2024
🖼️
0
Unveiling the Statistical Foundations of Chain-of-Thought Prompting Methods
Xinyang Hu, Fengzhuo Zhang, Siyu Chen, Zhuoran Yang
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and its variants have gained popularity as effective methods for solving multi-step reasoning problems using pretrained large language models (LLMs). In this work, we analyze CoT prompting from a statistical estimation perspective, providing a comprehensive characterization of its sample complexity. To this end, we introduce a multi-step latent variable model that encapsulates the reasoning process, where the latent variable encodes the task information. Under this framework, we demonstrate that when the pretraining dataset is sufficiently large, the estimator formed by CoT prompting is equivalent to a Bayesian estimator. This estimator effectively solves the multi-step reasoning problem by aggregating a posterior distribution inferred from the demonstration examples in the prompt. Moreover, we prove that the statistical error of the CoT estimator can be decomposed into two main components: (i) a prompting error, which arises from inferring the true task using CoT prompts, and (ii) the statistical error of the pretrained LLM. We establish that, under appropriate assumptions, the prompting error decays exponentially to zero as the number of demonstrations increases. Additionally, we explicitly characterize the approximation and generalization errors of the pretrained LLM. Notably, we construct a transformer model that approximates the target distribution of the multi-step reasoning problem with an error that decreases exponentially in the number of transformer blocks. Our analysis extends to other variants of CoT, including Self-Consistent CoT, Tree-of-Thought, and Selection-Inference, offering a broad perspective on the efficacy of these methods. We also provide numerical experiments to validate the theoretical findings.
Read more8/29/2024