Related papers: Is ChatGPT a Good Causal Reasoner? A Comprehensive Evaluation

Is ChatGPT a Good Causal Reasoner? A Comprehensive Evaluation

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07375v4
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:42:25 GMT
Title: Is ChatGPT a Good Causal Reasoner? A Comprehensive Evaluation
Authors: Jinglong Gao, Xiao Ding, Bing Qin, Ting Liu
Abstract summary: We conduct the first comprehensive evaluation of the ChatGPT's causal reasoning capabilities. Experiments show that ChatGPT is not a good causal reasoner, but a good causal explainer. The causal reasoning ability of ChatGPT is sensitive to the words used to express the causal concept in prompts.
Score: 37.288716311853115
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Causal reasoning ability is crucial for numerous NLP applications. Despite the impressive emerging ability of ChatGPT in various NLP tasks, it is unclear how well ChatGPT performs in causal reasoning. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive evaluation of the ChatGPT's causal reasoning capabilities. Experiments show that ChatGPT is not a good causal reasoner, but a good causal explainer. Besides, ChatGPT has a serious hallucination on causal reasoning, possibly due to the reporting biases between causal and non-causal relationships in natural language, as well as ChatGPT's upgrading processes, such as RLHF. The In-Context Learning (ICL) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques can further exacerbate such causal hallucination. Additionally, the causal reasoning ability of ChatGPT is sensitive to the words used to express the causal concept in prompts, and close-ended prompts perform better than open-ended prompts. For events in sentences, ChatGPT excels at capturing explicit causality rather than implicit causality, and performs better in sentences with lower event density and smaller lexical distance between events. The code is available on https://github.com/ArrogantL/ChatGPT4CausalReasoning .

Related papers

Complementary Advantages of ChatGPTs and Human Readers in Reasoning: Evidence from English Text Reading Comprehension [12.240611073541597]
ChatGPT has shown its great power in text processing, including its reasoning ability from text reading. There has not been any direct comparison between human readers and ChatGPT in reasoning ability related to text reading. This study was undertaken to investigate how ChatGPTs and Chinese senior school students exhibited their reasoning ability from English narrative texts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-17T06:13:02Z)
Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples. One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports. Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z)
Primacy Effect of ChatGPT [69.49920102917598]
We study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-20T00:37:28Z)
Does ChatGPT have Theory of Mind? [2.3129337924262927]
Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to understand human thinking and decision-making. This paper investigates what extent recent Large Language Models in the ChatGPT tradition possess ToM.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T12:55:21Z)
Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech [8.761064812847078]
We examine whether ChatGPT can be used for providing natural language explanations (NLEs) for implicit hateful speech detection. We design our prompt to elicit concise ChatGPT-generated NLEs and conduct user studies to evaluate their qualities. We discuss the potential and limitations of ChatGPT in the context of implicit hateful speech research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-11T03:13:54Z)
A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity [79.12003701981092]
We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T12:35:34Z)
Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)

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