Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00747v1
• Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2022 06:20:57 GMT
• Title: Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models
• Authors: Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Denny Zhou
• Abstract summary: We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
• Score: 53.45015291520658
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent research has shown that rationales, or step-by-step chains of thought, can be used to improve performance in multi-step reasoning tasks. We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning, where (input -> output) prompts are expanded to (input, rationale -> output) prompts. For rationale-augmented prompting we demonstrate how existing approaches, which rely on manual prompt engineering, are subject to sub-optimal rationales that may harm performance. To mitigate this brittleness, we propose a unified framework of rationale-augmented ensembles, where we identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. This framework is general and can easily be extended to common natural language processing tasks, even those that do not traditionally leverage intermediate steps, such as question answering, word sense disambiguation, and sentiment analysis. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches--including standard prompting without rationales and rationale-based chain-of-thought prompting--while simultaneously improving interpretability of model predictions through the associated rationales.

Related papers

• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage. Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes. causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• BRiTE: Bootstrapping Reinforced Thinking Process to Enhance Language Model Reasoning [78.63421517563056]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex reasoning tasks. We present a unified probabilistic framework that formalizes LLM reasoning through a novel graphical model. We introduce the Bootstrapping Reinforced Thinking Process (BRiTE) algorithm, which works in two steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T02:39:07Z)
• Think Beyond Size: Adaptive Prompting for More Effective Reasoning [0.0]
  We introduce Adaptive Prompting, a dynamic and iterative framework designed to enhance reasoning by incorporating real-time adjustments to prompt structures and validation mechanisms. Results demonstrate that Adaptive Prompting significantly improves performance on diverse reasoning benchmarks, including arithmetic reasoning (GSM8K, MultiArithm), logical reasoning and commonsense tasks. Our approach enables smaller models to achieve competitive performance with larger counterparts, such as GPT-4, while maintaining computational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:14:36Z)
• Proof of Thought : Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis allows Robust and Interpretable Reasoning [1.3003982724617653]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning. This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs. Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T18:35:45Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Large Language Models as an Indirect Reasoner: Contrapositive and Contradiction for Automated Reasoning [74.90592233107712]
  We propose a Direct-Indirect Reasoning (DIR) method, which considers Direct Reasoning (DR) and Indirect Reasoning (IR) as multiple parallel reasoning paths that are merged to derive the final answer. Our DIR method is simple yet effective and can be straightforwardly integrated with existing variants of CoT methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:41:12Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Explanation: On Causal Rationalization [9.48539398357156]
  We propose a new model of rationalization based on two causal desiderata, non-spuriousness and efficiency. The superior performance of the proposed causal rationalization is demonstrated on real-world review and medical datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-25T03:34:06Z)
• Can Rationalization Improve Robustness? [39.741059642044874]
  We investigate whether neural NLP models can provide robustness to adversarial attacks in addition to their interpretable nature. We generate various types of 'AddText' attacks for both token and sentence-level rationalization tasks. Our experiments reveal that the rationale models show the promise to improve robustness, while they struggle in certain scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T17:02:42Z)
• SPECTRA: Sparse Structured Text Rationalization [0.0]
  We present a unified framework for deterministic extraction of structured explanations via constrained inference on a factor graph. Our approach greatly eases training and rationale regularization, generally outperforming previous work on plausibility extracted explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T20:39:56Z)
• Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales [60.58672852655487]
  In interpretable NLP, we require faithful rationales that reflect the model's decision-making process for an explained instance. We demonstrate that pipelines, existing models for faithful extractive rationalization on information-extraction style tasks, do not extend as reliably to "reasoning" tasks requiring free-text rationales. We turn to models that jointly predict and rationalize, a class of widely used high-performance models for free-text rationalization whose faithfulness is not yet established.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T03:40:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.