Related papers: Two Failures of Self-Consistency in the Multi-Step Reasoning of LLMs

Two Failures of Self-Consistency in the Multi-Step Reasoning of LLMs

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14279v4
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:37:07 GMT
Title: Two Failures of Self-Consistency in the Multi-Step Reasoning of LLMs
Authors: Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, Alicia Parrish, Vishakh Padmakumar, Chen Zhao, Samuel R. Bowman, Kyunghyun Cho
Abstract summary: We argue that self-consistency is an important criteria for valid multi-step reasoning in tasks where the solution is composed of the answers to multiple sub-steps. We propose two types of self-consistency that are particularly important for multi-step reasoning -- hypothetical consistency and compositional consistency. We demonstrate that multiple variants of the GPT-3/-4 models exhibit poor consistency rates across both types of consistency on a variety of tasks.
Score: 78.31625291513589
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved widespread success on a variety of in-context few-shot tasks, but this success is typically evaluated via correctness rather than consistency. We argue that self-consistency is an important criteria for valid multi-step reasoning in tasks where the solution is composed of the answers to multiple sub-steps. We propose two types of self-consistency that are particularly important for multi-step reasoning -- hypothetical consistency (a model's ability to predict what its output would be in a hypothetical other context) and compositional consistency (consistency of a model's final outputs when intermediate sub-steps are replaced with the model's outputs for those steps). We demonstrate that multiple variants of the GPT-3/-4 models exhibit poor consistency rates across both types of consistency on a variety of tasks.

Related papers

Can Large Language Models Always Solve Easy Problems if They Can Solve Harder Ones? [65.43882564649721]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but still suffer from inconsistency issues. We develop the ConsisEval benchmark, where each entry comprises a pair of questions with a strict order of difficulty. We analyze the potential for improvement in consistency by relative consistency score.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-18T17:25:47Z)
An Empirical Investigation into Benchmarking Model Multiplicity for Trustworthy Machine Learning: A Case Study on Image Classification [0.8702432681310401]
This paper offers a one-stop empirical benchmark of multiplicity across various dimensions of model design. We also develop a framework, which we call multiplicity sheets, to benchmark multiplicity in various scenarios. We show that multiplicity persists in deep learning models even after enforcing additional specifications during model selection.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-24T22:30:38Z)
Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity [4.141513298907867]
This work presents an evaluation benchmark for self-consistency in cases of under-specification. We conduct a series of behavioral experiments on the OpenAI model suite using an ambiguous integer sequence completion task. We find that average consistency ranges from 67% to 82%, far higher than would be predicted if a model's consistency was random.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-20T11:57:56Z)
AdaMerging: Adaptive Model Merging for Multi-Task Learning [68.75885518081357]
This paper introduces an innovative technique called Adaptive Model Merging (AdaMerging) It aims to autonomously learn the coefficients for model merging, either in a task-wise or layer-wise manner, without relying on the original training data. Compared to the current state-of-the-art task arithmetic merging scheme, AdaMerging showcases a remarkable 11% improvement in performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-04T04:26:33Z)
Enhancing Large Language Models in Coding Through Multi-Perspective Self-Consistency [127.97467912117652]
Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable ability in code generation. However, generating the correct solution in a single attempt still remains a challenge. We propose the Multi-Perspective Self-Consistency (MPSC) framework incorporating both inter- and intra-consistency.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-29T14:23:26Z)
Exposing and Addressing Cross-Task Inconsistency in Unified Vision-Language Models [80.23791222509644]
Inconsistent AI models are considered brittle and untrustworthy by human users. We find that state-of-the-art vision-language models suffer from a surprisingly high degree of inconsistent behavior across tasks. We propose a rank correlation-based auxiliary training objective, computed over large automatically created cross-task contrast sets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-28T16:57:12Z)
MM-SHAP: A Performance-agnostic Metric for Measuring Multimodal Contributions in Vision and Language Models & Tasks [20.902155496422417]
Vision and language models exploit unrobust indicators in individual modalities instead of focusing on relevant information in each modality. We propose MM-SHAP, a performance-agnostic multimodality score based on Shapley values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-15T21:41:06Z)
AvgOut: A Simple Output-Probability Measure to Eliminate Dull Responses [97.50616524350123]
We build dialogue models that are dynamically aware of what utterances or tokens are dull without any feature-engineering. The first model, MinAvgOut, directly maximizes the diversity score through the output distributions of each batch. The second model, Label Fine-Tuning (LFT), prepends to the source sequence a label continuously scaled by the diversity score to control the diversity level. The third model, RL, adopts Reinforcement Learning and treats the diversity score as a reward signal.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-15T18:32:06Z)

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