Certified Deductive Reasoning with Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.04031v2
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 01:53:31 GMT
- Title: Certified Deductive Reasoning with Language Models
- Authors: Gabriel Poesia, Kanishk Gandhi, Eric Zelikman, Noah D. Goodman
- Abstract summary: We introduce a class of tools for language models called emphguides, that use state and incremental constraints to guide generation.
A guide can be invoked by the model to constrain its own generation to a set of valid statements.
We show how a general system for logical reasoning can be used as a guide, which we call textscLogicGuide.
- Score: 37.51289654360009
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Language models often achieve higher accuracy when reasoning step-by-step in
complex tasks. However, even when arriving at a correct final answer, their
rationales are often logically unsound or inconsistent. This is a major issue
when reliable reasoning traces are needed, such when fine-tuning on
model-generated reasoning for self-improvement. To tackle these issues, we
introduce a class of tools for language models called \emph{guides}, that use
state and incremental constraints to guide generation. A guide can be invoked
by the model to constrain its own generation to a set of valid statements given
by the tool. In turn, the model's choices can change the guide's state. We show
how a general system for logical reasoning can be used as a guide, which we
call \textsc{LogicGuide}. Given a reasoning problem in natural language, a
model can formalize its assumptions for \textsc{LogicGuide} and guarantee that
its step-by-step reasoning is sound. In experiments on PrOntoQA, ProofWriter
and Syllogism Validity datasets, \textsc{LogicGuide} significantly improves the
performance of GPT-3, GPT-3.5 Turbo and LLaMA (accuracy gains up to 35\%),
while drastically reducing \emph{content effects} -- the interference between
unwanted prior assumptions and reasoning, which humans and language models
suffer from. We then explore bootstrapping GPT-3.5 Turbo and LLaMA using their
own reasoning traces. We find that LogicGuide is critical: by training only on
certified self-generated reasoning, models can self-improve, avoiding learning
from their own hallucinations. Moreover, bootstrapped models enjoy significant
boosts on ReClor, a challenging real-world reasoning dataset, even when not
relying on formalization at inference time.
Related papers
- Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know? [7.423494663010787]
Reasoning language models have set state-of-the-art (SOTA) records on many challenging benchmarks.<n>Like previous language models, reasoning models are prone to generating confident, plausible responses that are incorrect.<n>Knowing when and how much to trust these models is critical to the safe deployment of reasoning models in real-world applications.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-06-22T21:46:42Z) - CoThink: Token-Efficient Reasoning via Instruct Models Guiding Reasoning Models [56.40065909544213]
Large language models (LLMs) benefit from increased test-time compute, a phenomenon known as test-time scaling.<n>However, reasoning-optimized models often overthink even simple problems, producing excessively verbose outputs and leading to low token efficiency.<n>We identify two key causes of this verbosity: (1) reinforcement learning reduces the information density of forward reasoning, and (2) backward chain-of thought training encourages redundant and often unnecessary verification steps.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-28T06:24:45Z) - Self-Critique Guided Iterative Reasoning for Multi-hop Question Answering [24.446222685949227]
Large language models (LLMs) face challenges in knowledge-intensive multi-hop reasoning.<n>We propose Self-Critique Guided Iterative Reasoning (SiGIR)<n>SiGIR uses self-critique feedback to guide the iterative reasoning process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-25T12:10:24Z) - Scaling Reasoning, Losing Control: Evaluating Instruction Following in Large Reasoning Models [27.142703756752997]
We introduce MathIF, a benchmark for evaluating instruction-following in mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>Our empirical analysis reveals a consistent tension between scaling up reasoning capacity and maintaining controllability.<n>We show that even simple interventions can partially recover obedience, though at the cost of reasoning performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-20T18:18:01Z) - Beyond 'Aha!': Toward Systematic Meta-Abilities Alignment in Large Reasoning Models [86.88657425848547]
Large reasoning models (LRMs) already possess a latent capacity for long chain-of-thought reasoning.<n>We explicitly align models with three meta-abilities: deduction, induction, and abduction, using automatically generated, self-verifiable tasks.<n>Our three stage-pipeline individual alignment, parameter-space merging, and domain-specific reinforcement learning, boosts performance by over 10% relative to instruction-tuned baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-15T17:58:33Z) - Implicit Reasoning in Transformers is Reasoning through Shortcuts [10.351525484558376]
Test-time compute is emerging as a new paradigm for enhancing language models' complex multi-step reasoning capabilities.
We investigate how language models perform implicit reasoning in multi-step tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-10T17:58:31Z) - Unveiling Reasoning Thresholds in Language Models: Scaling, Fine-Tuning, and Interpretability through Attention Maps [3.8936716676293917]
This study investigates the in-context learning capabilities of various decoder-only transformer-based language models with different model sizes and training data.
We identify a critical parameter threshold (1.6 billion), beyond which reasoning performance improves significantly in tasks such as commonsense reasoning in multiple-choice question answering and deductive reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-21T00:48:32Z) - Take It Easy: Label-Adaptive Self-Rationalization for Fact Verification and Explanation Generation [15.94564349084642]
Self-rationalization method is typically used in natural language inference tasks.
We fine-tune a model to learn veracity prediction with annotated labels.
We generate synthetic explanations from three large language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-05T02:19:49Z) - Understanding Reasoning Ability of Language Models From the Perspective of Reasoning Paths Aggregation [110.71955853831707]
We view LMs as deriving new conclusions by aggregating indirect reasoning paths seen at pre-training time.
We formalize the reasoning paths as random walk paths on the knowledge/reasoning graphs.
Experiments and analysis on multiple KG and CoT datasets reveal the effect of training on random walk paths.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-05T18:25:51Z) - Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoning [0.0]
Large language models (LLMs) often benefit from intermediate steps of reasoning to generate answers to complex problems.
In this work, we focus on one potential way intermediate steps of reasoning could be unfaithful: encoded reasoning.
We show that language models can be trained to make use of encoded reasoning to get higher performance without the user understanding the intermediate steps of reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-27T22:02:29Z) - Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [22.79166959432764]
Large Language Models (LLMs) benefit from Chain-of-Thought prompting in performing various reasoning tasks.
While CoT allows models to produce more comprehensive reasoning processes, its emphasis on intermediate reasoning steps can inadvertently introduce hallucinations and accumulated errors.
We propose Natural Program, a natural language-based deductive reasoning format.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-06T17:18:56Z) - Exposing Attention Glitches with Flip-Flop Language Modeling [55.0688535574859]
This work identifies and analyzes the phenomenon of attention glitches in large language models.
We introduce flip-flop language modeling (FFLM), a family of synthetic benchmarks designed to probe the extrapolative behavior of neural language models.
We find that Transformer FFLMs suffer from a long tail of sporadic reasoning errors, some of which we can eliminate using various regularization techniques.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-01T17:44:35Z) - ALERT: Adapting Language Models to Reasoning Tasks [43.8679673685468]
ALERT is a benchmark and suite of analyses for assessing language models' reasoning ability.
ALERT provides a test bed to asses any language model on fine-grained reasoning skills.
We find that language models learn more reasoning skills during finetuning stage compared to pretraining state.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-16T05:15:41Z) - Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision [72.95136739040676]
Existing techniques for training language models can be misaligned with the truth.
We propose directly finding latent knowledge inside the internal activations of a language model in a purely unsupervised way.
We show that despite using no supervision and no model outputs, our method can recover diverse knowledge represented in large language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-07T18:17:56Z) - MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios.
Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components.
We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z) - Language Models Are Greedy Reasoners: A Systematic Formal Analysis of
Chain-of-Thought [10.524051272257614]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities given chain-of-thought prompts.
We present a new synthetic question-answering dataset called PrOntoQA, where each example is generated as a synthetic world model.
This allows us to parse the generated chain-of-thought into symbolic proofs for formal analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-03T21:34:32Z) - The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-Shot In-Context Learning [50.77996380021221]
We focus on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference.
We show that explanations judged as good by humans--those that are logically consistent with the input--usually indicate more accurate predictions.
We present a framework for calibrating model predictions based on the reliability of the explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-06T17:57:58Z) - Leap-Of-Thought: Teaching Pre-Trained Models to Systematically Reason
Over Implicit Knowledge [96.92252296244233]
Large pre-trained language models (LMs) acquire some reasoning capacity, but this ability is difficult to control.
We show that LMs can be trained to reliably perform systematic reasoning combining both implicit, pre-trained knowledge and explicit natural language statements.
Our work paves a path towards open-domain systems that constantly improve by interacting with users who can instantly correct a model by adding simple natural language statements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-11T17:02:20Z)
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.