DCR: Divide-and-Conquer Reasoning for Multi-choice Question Answering with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05190v2
• Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:58:38 GMT
• Title: DCR: Divide-and-Conquer Reasoning for Multi-choice Question Answering with LLMs
• Authors: Zijie Meng, Yan Zhang, Zhaopeng Feng, Zuozhu Liu,
• Abstract summary: We propose Divide and Conquer Reasoning (DCR) to enhance the reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs) We first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($mathcalCS$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers. In particular, we first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($mathcalCS$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers.
• Score: 9.561022942046279
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in reasoning benchmarks with the emergence of Chain-of-Thought (CoT), particularly in multi-choice question (MCQ). However, current works equally resolve questions regardless of the problem-solving difficulty, leading to an excessive focus on simple items while insufficient attention on intricate ones. To address this challenge, we propose a simple yet effective strategy, Divide and Conquer Reasoning (DCR), to enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs for MCQs, as inspired by human beings using heuristics to first categorize tasks and then handle them separately. In particular, we first categorize questions into two subsets based on confidence score ($\mathcal{CS}$), which is estimated by statistical frequency of generated answers. Subsequently, we propose Filter Choices based Reasoning (FCR) to improve model performance on MCQs with low ($\mathcal{CS}$). Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed strategy only costs 85% of SOTA, while still achieves average accuracy improvement of 1.56% across nine datasets including arithmetic, commonsense, and logic reasoning tasks. The code is at \url{https://github.com/AiMijie/Divide-and-Conquer}

Related papers

• Option-ID Based Elimination For Multiple Choice Questions [12.30777266124562]
  Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are a popular and important task for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Based on common strategies people use when answering MCQs, the process of elimination (PoE) has been proposed as an effective problem-solving method. This paper proposes a PoE based on option ID. Specifically, our method eliminates option by selecting the option ID with the lowest probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-25T11:06:37Z)
• Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs [76.43407125275202]
  o1-like models can emulate human-like long-time thinking during inference. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on the prevalent issue of overthinking in these models. We propose strategies to mitigate overthinking, streamlining reasoning processes without compromising accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T18:55:12Z)
• AutoReason: Automatic Few-Shot Reasoning Decomposition [0.0]
  Chain of Thought (CoT) was introduced in recent research as a method for improving step-by-step reasoning in Large Language Models. We propose a system to automatically generate rationales using CoT. Our method improves multi-step implicit reasoning capabilities by decomposing the implicit query into several explicit questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T20:35:39Z)
• FLARE: Faithful Logic-Aided Reasoning and Exploration [50.9814063216852]
  We introduce a novel approach for traversing the problem space using task decompositions. We use the Large Language Models to plan a solution, soft-formalise the query into facts and predicates using a logic programming code. Our method allows us to compute the faithfulness of the reasoning process w.r.t. the generated code and analyse the steps of the multi-hop search without relying on external solvers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T19:39:11Z)
• AI-Assisted Generation of Difficult Math Questions [78.7547836422727]
  Current training positions mathematical reasoning as a core capability. There is unmet demand for diverse and challenging math questions. We present a design framework that combines the strengths of LLMs with a human-in-the-loop approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T17:55:36Z)
• Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs? [15.756543037102256]
  Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) The misalignment between the task and the evaluation method demands a thoughtful analysis of MCQ's efficacy. We evaluate nine LLMs on four question-answering (QA) datasets in two languages: Chinese and English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T14:43:48Z)
• PEDANTS: Cheap but Effective and Interpretable Answer Equivalence [10.367359022491181]
  We provide rubrics and datasets for evaluating machine QA adopted from the Trivia community. We also propose an efficient, and interpretable QA evaluation that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods(BERTScore)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T01:56:19Z)
• Training Chain-of-Thought via Latent-Variable Inference [30.21067593018967]
  Large language models (LLMs) solve problems more accurately and interpretably when instructed to work out the answer step by step using a chain-of-thought'' prompt. Naively combining CoT with supervised tuning requires supervision not just of the correct answers, but also of detailed rationales that lead to those answers. We propose a fine-tuning strategy that tries to maximize the emphmarginal log-likelihood of generating a correct answer using CoT prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T17:47:32Z)
• Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning [61.523627290397556]
  We introduce a stepwise self-evaluation mechanism to guide and calibrate the reasoning process of Large Language Model (LLM) We propose a decoding algorithm integrating the self-evaluation guidance via beam search. Our approach surpasses the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines in few-shot accuracy by $6.34%$, $9.56%$, and $5.46%$ on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T02:37:59Z)
• Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies [78.68534915690404]
  StrategyQA is a benchmark where the required reasoning steps are implicit in the question, and should be inferred using a strategy. We propose a data collection procedure that combines term-based priming to inspire annotators, careful control over the annotator population, and adversarial filtering for eliminating reasoning shortcuts. Overall, StrategyQA includes 2,780 examples, each consisting of a strategy question, its decomposition, and evidence paragraphs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-06T19:14:23Z)
• Counterfactual Variable Control for Robust and Interpretable Question Answering [57.25261576239862]
  Deep neural network based question answering (QA) models are neither robust nor explainable in many cases. In this paper, we inspect such spurious "capability" of QA models using causal inference. We propose a novel approach called Counterfactual Variable Control (CVC) that explicitly mitigates any shortcut correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T10:09:05Z)

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.