On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08115v2
• Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 21:25:31 GMT
• Title: On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks
• Authors: Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, Subbarao Kambhampati,
• Abstract summary: We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT-4 in three domains: Game of 24, Graph Coloring, and STRIPS planning. We observe significant performance collapse with self-critique and significant performance gains with sound external verification.
• Score: 17.329365493094542
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: There has been considerable divergence of opinion on the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). While the initial optimism that reasoning might emerge automatically with scale has been tempered thanks to a slew of counterexamples--ranging from multiplication to simple planning--there persists a wide spread belief that LLMs can self-critique and improve their own solutions in an iterative fashion. This belief seemingly rests on the assumption that verification of correctness should be easier than generation--a rather classical argument from computational complexity--which should be irrelevant to LLMs to the extent that what they are doing is approximate retrieval. In this paper, we set out to systematically investigate the effectiveness of iterative prompting in the context of reasoning and planning. We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT-4 in three domains: Game of 24, Graph Coloring, and STRIPS planning. We experiment both with the model critiquing its own answers and with an external correct reasoner verifying proposed solutions. In each case, we analyze whether the content of criticisms actually affects bottom line performance, and whether we can ablate elements of the augmented system without losing performance. We observe significant performance collapse with self-critique and significant performance gains with sound external verification. We also note that merely re-prompting with a sound verifier maintains most of the benefits of more involved setups.

Related papers

• Vision-Language Models Can Self-Improve Reasoning via Reflection [20.196406628954303]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) has proven to improve the reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs) We propose a self-training framework, R3V, which iteratively enhances the model's Vision-language Reasoning by Reflecting on CoT Rationales. Our approach supports self-reflection on generated solutions, further boosting performance through test-time computation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T14:45:00Z)
• 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)
• Reflective Instruction Tuning: Mitigating Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models [36.119299938503936]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have shown promising performance on a variety of vision-language tasks. They remain susceptible to hallucinations, generating outputs misaligned with visual content or instructions. We propose reflective instruction tuning, which integrates rationale learning into visual instruction tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T06:32:45Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Distilling Reasoning Ability from Large Language Models with Adaptive Thinking [54.047761094420174]
  Chain of thought finetuning (cot-finetuning) aims to endow small language models (SLM) with reasoning ability to improve their performance towards specific tasks. Most existing cot-finetuning methods adopt a pre-thinking mechanism, allowing the SLM to generate a rationale before providing an answer. This mechanism enables SLM to analyze and think about complex questions, but it also makes answer correctness highly sensitive to minor errors in rationale. We propose a robust post-thinking mechanism to generate answers before rationale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T07:19:27Z)
• Learning From Correctness Without Prompting Makes LLM Efficient Reasoner [30.203952806009717]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated outstanding performance across various tasks, yet they still exhibit limitations such as hallucination, unfaithful reasoning, and toxic content. We introduce an intrinsic self-correct reasoning framework for LLMs that eliminates the need for human feedback, external tools, and handcraft prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T02:12:49Z)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• GPT-4 Doesn't Know It's Wrong: An Analysis of Iterative Prompting for Reasoning Problems [16.284360949127723]
  We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT4 in solving graph coloring instances or verifying the correctness of candidate colorings. We show that the observed increase in effectiveness is largely due to the correct solution being fortuitously present in the top-k completions of the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T00:56:37Z)
• Can Large Language Models Really Improve by Self-critiquing Their Own Plans? [19.476470154121188]
  We investigate the verification/self-critiquing abilities of large language models in the context of planning. Using GPT-4, a state-of-the-art LLM, for both generation and verification, our findings reveal that self-critiquing appears to diminish plan generation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T08:22:37Z)

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.