Eliminating Reasoning via Inferring with Planning: A New Framework to Guide LLMs' Non-linear Thinking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12342v2
• Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 00:59:54 GMT
• Title: Eliminating Reasoning via Inferring with Planning: A New Framework to Guide LLMs' Non-linear Thinking
• Authors: Yongqi Tong, Yifan Wang, Dawei Li, Sizhe Wang, Zi Lin, Simeng Han, Jingbo Shang
• Abstract summary: Chain-of-Thought(CoT) prompting and its variants explore equipping large language models with high-level reasoning abilities. We propose textbfInferential textbfExclusion textbfPrompting (IEP), a novel prompting that combines the principles of elimination and inference.
• Score: 40.22335733384235
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Chain-of-Thought(CoT) prompting and its variants explore equipping large language models (LLMs) with high-level reasoning abilities by emulating human-like linear cognition and logic. However, the human mind is complicated and mixed with both linear and nonlinear thinking. In this work, we propose \textbf{I}nferential \textbf{E}xclusion \textbf{P}rompting (IEP), a novel prompting that combines the principles of elimination and inference in order to guide LLMs to think non-linearly. IEP guides LLMs to plan and then utilize Natural Language Inference (NLI) to deduce each possible solution's entailment relation with context, commonsense, or facts, therefore yielding a broader perspective by thinking back for inferring. This forward planning and backward eliminating process allows IEP to better simulate the complex human thinking processes compared to other CoT-based methods, which only reflect linear cognitive processes. We conducted a series of empirical studies and have corroborated that IEP consistently outperforms CoT across various tasks. Additionally, we observe that integrating IEP and CoT further improves the LLMs' performance on certain tasks, highlighting the necessity of equipping LLMs with mixed logic processes. Moreover, to better evaluate comprehensive features inherent in human logic, we introduce \textbf{M}ental-\textbf{A}bility \textbf{R}easoning \textbf{B}enchmark (MARB). The benchmark comprises six novel subtasks with a total of 9,115 questions, among which 1,685 are developed with hand-crafted rationale references. We believe both \textsc{IEP} and \textsc{MARB} can serve as a promising direction for unveiling LLMs' logic and verbal reasoning abilities and drive further advancements. \textsc{MARB} will be available at ~\texttt{anonymity link} soon.

Related papers

• Integrating Large Language Models and Reinforcement Learning for Non-Linear Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) were shown to struggle with long-term planning. We propose an architecture where a Reinforcement Learning (RL) Agent guides an LLM's space exploration. We evaluate this architecture on the program equivalence task, and compare it against Chain of Thought (CoT) and Tree of Thoughts (ToT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T12:47:31Z)
• Reversal of Thought: Enhancing Large Language Models with Preference-Guided Reverse Reasoning Warm-up [9.42385235462794]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in reasoning tasks but face limitations in mathematical and complex logical reasoning. We propose Reversal of Thought (RoT), a novel framework aimed at enhancing the logical reasoning abilities of LLMs. RoT utilizes a Preference-Guided Reverse Reasoning warm-up strategy, which integrates logical symbols for pseudocode planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:44:28Z)
• 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)
• Does Reasoning Emerge? Examining the Probabilities of Causation in Large Language Models [6.922021128239465]
  Recent advances in AI have been driven by the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) This paper introduces a framework that is both theoretical and practical, aimed at assessing how effectively LLMs are able to replicate real-world reasoning mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T15:19:11Z)
• Large Language Models are Interpretable Learners [53.56735770834617]
  In this paper, we show a combination of Large Language Models (LLMs) and symbolic programs can bridge the gap between expressiveness and interpretability. The pretrained LLM with natural language prompts provides a massive set of interpretable modules that can transform raw input into natural language concepts. As the knowledge learned by LSP is a combination of natural language descriptions and symbolic rules, it is easily transferable to humans (interpretable) and other LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T02:18:15Z)
• Generating Chain-of-Thoughts with a Pairwise-Comparison Approach to Searching for the Most Promising Intermediate Thought [70.30423016640749]
  Chain-of-thoughts (CoT) methods were proposed to guide large language models to reason step-by-step, enabling problem solving from simple to complex. The evaluation from the large language model (LLMs) is typically noisy and unreliable, potentially misleading the generation process in selecting promising intermediate thoughts. In this paper, motivated by Vapnik's principle, we use pairwise-comparison evaluation instead of point-wise scoring to search for promising intermediate thoughts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-10T09:51:03Z)
• Enhancing Ethical Explanations of Large Language Models through Iterative Symbolic Refinement [5.108863224378874]
  This paper investigates how hybrid neuro-symbolic techniques can enhance the logical validity and alignment of ethical explanations. We present an abductive-deductive framework named Logic-Explainer, which integrates Large Language Models with an external backward-chaining solver. An empirical analysis demonstrates that Logic-Explainer can improve explanations generated via in-context learning methods and Chain-of-Thought.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T16:39:51Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• ChatABL: Abductive Learning via Natural Language Interaction with ChatGPT [72.83383437501577]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated significant potential in mathematical abilities. LLMs currently have difficulty in bridging perception, language understanding and reasoning capabilities. This paper presents a novel method for integrating LLMs into the abductive learning framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T16:23:47Z)
• Reflective Decoding: Beyond Unidirectional Generation with Off-the-Shelf Language Models [63.808843089941405]
  Large pretrained LanguageModels (LMs) generate text with remarkable quality, but only sequentially from left to right. We present Reflective Decoding, a novel unsupervised algorithm that allows for direct application of unidirectional LMs to non-sequential tasks. Our 2-step approach requires no supervision or even parallel corpora, only two off-the-shelf pretrained LMs in opposite directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-16T18:02:07Z)

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.