Towards Faithful Chain-of-Thought: Large Language Models are Bridging Reasoners
2405.18915
0
0
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) suffer from serious unfaithful chain-of-thought (CoT) issues. Previous work attempts to measure and explain it but lacks in-depth analysis within CoTs and does not consider the interactions among all reasoning components jointly. In this paper, we first study the CoT faithfulness issue at the granularity of CoT steps, identify two reasoning paradigms: centralized reasoning and distributed reasoning, and find their relationship with faithfulness. Subsequently, we conduct a joint analysis of the causal relevance among the context, CoT, and answer during reasoning. The result proves that, when the LLM predicts answers, it can recall correct information missing in the CoT from the context, leading to unfaithfulness issues. Finally, we propose the inferential bridging method to mitigate this issue, in which we use the attribution method to recall information as hints for CoT generation and filter out noisy CoTs based on their semantic consistency and attribution scores. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach effectively alleviates the unfaithful CoT problem.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores how large language models (LLMs) can perform chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, a step-by-step process of solving complex problems.
- The authors investigate two different paradigms for LLMs to engage in CoT reasoning: the "dissociation of faithful and unfaithful reasoning" approach and the "how to think step-by-step" approach.
- The research aims to understand the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in bridging the gap between natural language understanding and logical reasoning.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are AI systems that can process and generate human-like text. This paper looks at how LLMs can perform a type of reasoning called "chain-of-thought" (CoT), where the model breaks down a complex problem into a series of logical steps to arrive at a solution.
The researchers explore two different ways LLMs can do this CoT reasoning. In the first approach, the model learns to separate "faithful" reasoning (following strict logic) from "unfaithful" reasoning (using more intuitive but imprecise language). This allows the model to apply the right type of reasoning for the task at hand.
The second approach teaches the LLM to explicitly think through the steps needed to solve a problem, almost like a human would. The model learns to generate a sequence of intermediate thoughts and conclusions that lead to the final answer.
By studying these two approaches, the researchers aim to better understand the strengths and limitations of LLMs when it comes to bridging the gap between natural language understanding and formal logical reasoning. This could help improve the problem-solving capabilities of these powerful AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates two paradigms for enabling large language models (LLMs) to perform chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning:
-
Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning: This approach, explored in previous work like Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning in Large Language Models, trains the LLM to distinguish between "faithful" reasoning that strictly follows logical rules, and "unfaithful" reasoning that relies more on intuitive language patterns. The model learns to apply the appropriate reasoning mode for the task at hand.
-
How to Think Step-by-Step: In this paradigm, inspired by work like How to Think, Step-by-Step, the LLM is trained to explicitly generate a sequence of intermediate thoughts and conclusions that lead to the final answer, mimicking the step-by-step reasoning process of humans.
The paper also reviews related approaches, such as using small language models to supplement large language models and incorporating graph-based chain-of-thought reasoning into LLMs.
The authors conduct experiments to evaluate the performance of LLMs on CoT reasoning tasks under these different paradigms, with the goal of bridging the gap between natural language understanding and logical reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the two main paradigms for enabling large language models to perform chain-of-thought reasoning. However, the authors acknowledge several caveats and limitations to their work:
- The dissociation of faithful and unfaithful reasoning may not fully capture the nuances of how humans apply different modes of thinking in complex problem-solving.
- The step-by-step reasoning approach, while more transparent, may struggle to capture the more holistic, intuitive reasoning that humans often rely on.
- The experiments are conducted on relatively simple tasks, and it remains to be seen how well these approaches scale to more complex, real-world problems.
- The paper does not delve into the potential ethical implications of LLMs engaging in formal logical reasoning, such as issues of transparency and accountability.
Furthermore, the authors do not directly address the challenges of ensuring the faithfulness and reliability of LLM-generated chain-of-thought reasoning, which is a critical concern for the practical application of these techniques.
Conclusion
This paper presents a valuable exploration of how large language models can be trained to perform chain-of-thought reasoning, a key step in bridging the gap between natural language understanding and logical reasoning. The two paradigms investigated - dissociation of faithful and unfaithful reasoning, and step-by-step thinking - offer promising approaches, but also highlight the ongoing challenges in this domain.
As LLMs continue to advance, further research will be needed to address the limitations and ethical considerations identified in this work, ultimately paving the way for more reliable and transparent problem-solving capabilities in 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
On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models
Sree Harsha Tanneru, Dan Ley, Chirag Agarwal, Himabindu Lakkaraju
0
0
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in real-world applications in critical domains such as healthcare, it is important to ensure that the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning generated by these models faithfully captures their underlying behavior. While LLMs are known to generate CoT reasoning that is appealing to humans, prior studies have shown that these explanations do not accurately reflect the actual behavior of the underlying LLMs. In this work, we explore the promise of three broad approaches commonly employed to steer the behavior of LLMs to enhance the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs: in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing. Specifically, we introduce novel strategies for in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing aimed at improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning. We then carry out extensive empirical analyses with multiple benchmark datasets to explore the promise of these strategies. Our analyses indicate that these strategies offer limited success in improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning, with only slight performance enhancements in controlled scenarios. Activation editing demonstrated minimal success, while fine-tuning and in-context learning achieved marginal improvements that failed to generalize across diverse reasoning and truthful question-answering benchmarks. In summary, our work underscores the inherent difficulty in eliciting faithful CoT reasoning from LLMs, suggesting that the current array of approaches may not be sufficient to address this complex challenge.
6/18/2024
Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness as Disguised Accuracy
Oliver Bentham, Nathan Stringham, Ana Marasovi'c
0
0
Understanding the extent to which Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generations align with a large language model's (LLM) internal computations is critical for deciding whether to trust an LLM's output. As a proxy for CoT faithfulness, Lanham et al. (2023) propose a metric that measures a model's dependence on its CoT for producing an answer. Within a single family of proprietary models, they find that LLMs exhibit a scaling-then-inverse-scaling relationship between model size and their measure of faithfulness, and that a 13 billion parameter model exhibits increased faithfulness compared to models ranging from 810 million to 175 billion parameters in size. We evaluate whether these results generalize as a property of all LLMs. We replicate the experimental setup in their section focused on scaling experiments with three different families of models and, under specific conditions, successfully reproduce the scaling trends for CoT faithfulness they report. However, after normalizing the metric to account for a model's bias toward certain answer choices, unfaithfulness drops significantly for smaller less-capable models. This normalized faithfulness metric is also strongly correlated ($R^2$=0.74) with accuracy, raising doubts about its validity for evaluating faithfulness.
6/24/2024
Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning in LLMs
Evelyn Yee, Alice Li, Chenyu Tang, Yeon Ho Jung, Ramamohan Paturi, Leon Bergen
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance in downstream tasks when they generate Chain of Thought reasoning text before producing an answer. Our research investigates how LLMs recover from errors in Chain of Thought, reaching the correct final answer despite mistakes in the reasoning text. Through analysis of these error recovery behaviors, we find evidence for unfaithfulness in Chain of Thought, but we also identify many clear examples of faithful error recovery behaviors. We identify factors that shift LLM recovery behavior: LLMs recover more frequently from obvious errors and in contexts that provide more evidence for the correct answer. However, unfaithful recoveries show the opposite behavior, occurring more frequently for more difficult error positions. Our results indicate that there are distinct mechanisms driving faithful and unfaithful error recoveries. Our results challenge the view that LLM reasoning is a uniform, coherent process.
5/27/2024
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