Demystifying Chains, Trees, and Graphs of Thoughts
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14295v3
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:40:50 GMT
- Title: Demystifying Chains, Trees, and Graphs of Thoughts
- Authors: Maciej Besta, Florim Memedi, Zhenyu Zhang, Robert Gerstenberger, Guangyuan Piao, Nils Blach, Piotr Nyczyk, Marcin Copik, Grzegorz Kwaśniewski, Jürgen Müller, Lukas Gianinazzi, Ales Kubicek, Hubert Niewiadomski, Aidan O'Mahony, Onur Mutlu, Torsten Hoefler,
- Abstract summary: We focus on identifying fundamental classes of harnessed structures, and we analyze the representations of these structures.
Our study compares existing prompting schemes using the proposed taxonomy, discussing how certain design choices lead to different patterns in performance and cost.
- Score: 20.980650840083385
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: The field of natural language processing (NLP) has witnessed significant progress in recent years, with a notable focus on improving large language models' (LLM) performance through innovative prompting techniques. Among these, prompt engineering coupled with structures has emerged as a promising paradigm, with designs such as Chain-of-Thought, Tree of Thoughts, or Graph of Thoughts, in which the overall LLM reasoning is guided by a structure such as a graph. As illustrated with numerous examples, this paradigm significantly enhances the LLM's capability to solve numerous tasks, ranging from logical or mathematical reasoning to planning or creative writing. To facilitate the understanding of this growing field and pave the way for future developments, we devise a general blueprint for effective and efficient LLM reasoning schemes. For this, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the prompt execution pipeline, clarifying and clearly defining different concepts. We then build the first taxonomy of structure-enhanced LLM reasoning schemes. We focus on identifying fundamental classes of harnessed structures, and we analyze the representations of these structures, algorithms executed with these structures, and many others. We refer to these structures as reasoning topologies, because their representation becomes to a degree spatial, as they are contained within the LLM context. Our study compares existing prompting schemes using the proposed taxonomy, discussing how certain design choices lead to different patterns in performance and cost. We also outline theoretical underpinnings, relationships between prompting and other parts of the LLM ecosystem such as knowledge bases, and the associated research challenges. Our work will help to advance future prompt engineering techniques.
Related papers
- LogiDynamics: Unraveling the Dynamics of Logical Inference in Large Language Model Reasoning [49.58786377307728]
This paper adopts an exploratory approach by introducing a controlled evaluation environment for analogical reasoning.
We analyze the comparative dynamics of inductive, abductive, and deductive inference pipelines.
We investigate advanced paradigms such as hypothesis selection, verification, and refinement, revealing their potential to scale up logical inference.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-16T15:54:53Z) - Advancing Reasoning in Large Language Models: Promising Methods and Approaches [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have succeeded remarkably in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks.
Their ability to perform complex reasoning-spanning logical deduction, mathematical problem-solving, commonsense inference, and multi-step reasoning-often falls short of human expectations.
This survey provides a comprehensive review of emerging techniques enhancing reasoning in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-05T23:31:39Z) - Reasoning with Graphs: Structuring Implicit Knowledge to Enhance LLMs Reasoning [73.2950349728376]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across a wide range of tasks.
However, they still encounter challenges in reasoning tasks that require understanding and inferring relationships between pieces of information.
This challenge is particularly pronounced in tasks involving multi-step processes, such as logical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.
We propose Reasoning with Graphs (RwG) by first constructing explicit graphs from the context.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-14T05:18:20Z) - Enhancing LLM Reasoning with Reward-guided Tree Search [95.06503095273395]
o1-like reasoning approach is challenging, and researchers have been making various attempts to advance this open area of research.
We present a preliminary exploration into enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs through reward-guided tree search algorithms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-18T16:15:17Z) - Supervised Chain of Thought [5.389461633686935]
Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting offers a promising approach to solving complex reasoning tasks.
One-prompt-for-all approach poses significant challenges for models to generate the correct reasoning steps.
We show how task-specific supervision is essential for navigating the prompt space accurately and achieving optimal performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-18T06:25:27Z) - 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) - 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) - Thought-Like-Pro: Enhancing Reasoning of Large Language Models through Self-Driven Prolog-based Chain-of-Thought [31.964412924094656]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance as general-purpose assistants.
We introduce a novel learning framework, THOUGHT-LIKE-PRO, to facilitate learning and generalization across diverse reasoning tasks.
Our empirical findings indicate that our proposed approach substantially enhances the reasoning abilities of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-18T18:52:10Z) - LLM Inference Unveiled: Survey and Roofline Model Insights [62.92811060490876]
Large Language Model (LLM) inference is rapidly evolving, presenting a unique blend of opportunities and challenges.
Our survey stands out from traditional literature reviews by not only summarizing the current state of research but also by introducing a framework based on roofline model.
This framework identifies the bottlenecks when deploying LLMs on hardware devices and provides a clear understanding of practical problems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-26T07:33:05Z) - 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)
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.