LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04684v3
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 23:36:25 GMT
- Title: LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
- Authors: Zifan Xu, Haozhu Wang, Dmitriy Bespalov, Xian Wu, Peter Stone, Yanjun Qi,
- Abstract summary: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs)
This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
- Score: 61.7853049843921
- License:
- Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning (ICL) approach for large language models (LLMs), especially when tackling complex reasoning tasks. Traditional ICL approaches construct prompts using examples that contain questions similar to the input question. However, CoT prompting, which includes crucial intermediate reasoning steps (rationales) within its examples, necessitates selecting examples based on these rationales rather than the questions themselves. Existing methods require human experts or pre-trained LLMs to describe the skill, a high-level abstraction of rationales, to guide the selection. These methods, however, are often costly and difficult to scale. Instead, this paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales, with a latent variable called a reasoning skill. Concurrently, LaRS learns a reasoning policy to determine the required reasoning skill for a given question. Then the ICL examples are selected by aligning the reasoning skills between past examples and the question. This approach is theoretically grounded and compute-efficient, eliminating the need for auxiliary LLM inference or manual prompt design. Empirical results demonstrate that LaRS consistently outperforms SOTA skill-based selection methods, processing example banks four times faster, reducing LLM inferences during the selection stage by half, and showing greater robustness to sub-optimal example banks.
Related papers
- Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question.
To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA)
Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z) - Combinatorial Reasoning: Selecting Reasons in Generative AI Pipelines via Combinatorial Optimization [2.090904951468026]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities at tasks that require human intelligence.
Yet the reasoning capability of LLMs is a matter of significant debate.
We introduce a framework for what we call Combinatorial Reasoning (CR), a fully-automated prompting method.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-19T16:47:44Z) - Aggregation of Reasoning: A Hierarchical Framework for Enhancing Answer Selection in Large Language Models [84.15513004135576]
Current research enhances the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning chains and ensembling based on the answer frequency.
This approach fails in scenarios where the correct answers are in the minority.
We introduce a hierarchical reasoning aggregation framework AoR, which selects answers based on the evaluation of reasoning chains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-21T17:12:19Z) - DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy.
First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights.
We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z) - Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models [32.71672086718057]
We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit failure patterns akin to human-like cognitive biases when dealing with disordered and irrelevant content in reasoning tasks.
We propose a novel reasoning approach named Concise and Organized Perception (COP)
COP carefully analyzes the given statements to identify the most pertinent information while eliminating redundancy efficiently.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-05T04:47:49Z) - 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) - Rethinking with Retrieval: Faithful Large Language Model Inference [91.66406351103484]
We propose a novel post-processing approach, rethinking with retrieval (RR)
RR retrieves relevant external knowledge based on the reasoning steps obtained from the chain-of-thought prompting.
We evaluate the effectiveness of RR through extensive experiments with GPT-3 on three complex reasoning tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-31T22:35:34Z)
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.