Can We Verify Step by Step for Incorrect Answer Detection?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10528v2
• Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:53:58 GMT
• Title: Can We Verify Step by Step for Incorrect Answer Detection?
• Authors: Xin Xu, Shizhe Diao, Can Yang, Yang Wang,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a benchmark, R2PE, designed to explore the relationship between reasoning chains and performance in various reasoning tasks. This benchmark aims to measure the falsehood of the final output of LLMs based on the reasoning steps. We propose the process discernibility score (PDS) framework that beats the answer-checking baseline by a large margin.
• Score: 22.984011562264147
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has marked a significant advancement in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Previous studies have developed various extensions of CoT, which focus primarily on enhancing end-task performance. In addition, there has been research on assessing the quality of reasoning chains in CoT. This raises an intriguing question: Is it possible to predict the accuracy of LLM outputs by scrutinizing the reasoning chains they generate? To answer this research question, we introduce a benchmark, R2PE, designed specifically to explore the relationship between reasoning chains and performance in various reasoning tasks spanning five different domains. This benchmark aims to measure the falsehood of the final output of LLMs based on the reasoning steps. To make full use of information in multiple reasoning chains, we propose the process discernibility score (PDS) framework that beats the answer-checking baseline by a large margin. Concretely, this resulted in an average of $5.1\%$ increase in the F1 score and $2.97\%$ improvement in AUC-PR across all 45 subsets within R2PE. We further demonstrate our PDS's efficacy in advancing open-domain QA accuracy. Data and code are available at https://github.com/XinXU-USTC/R2PE.

Related papers

• MR-BEN: A Comprehensive Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark that demands a meta reasoning skill. MR-BEN is a comprehensive benchmark comprising 5,975 questions collected from human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Chain of Preference Optimization: Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs [37.147529569445396]
  Tree-of-thought (ToT) method employs tree-searching to extensively explore the reasoning space and find better reasoning paths that CoT decoding might overlook. Fine-tuning language models (LLMs) leveraging the search tree constructed by ToT allows CoT to achieve similar or better performance. This is achieved through Chain of Preference Optimization (CPO), where LLMs are fine-tuned to align each step of the CoT reasoning paths with those of ToT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:07:02Z)
• Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs [52.42505579545893]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought explanations alongside answers. We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:22:56Z)
• AQA-Bench: An Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs' Sequential Reasoning Ability [29.1826948551409]
  AQA-Bench is a novel benchmark to assess the sequential reasoning capabilities of large language models. We build AQA-Bench with three different algorithms, namely binary search, depth-first search, and breadth-first search. Our investigations reveal several interesting findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T18:59:33Z)
• The Impact of Reasoning Step Length on Large Language Models [40.546685248243534]
  Chain of Thought (CoT) is significant in improving the reasoning abilities of large language models. We investigate the correlation between the effectiveness of CoT and the length of reasoning steps in prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T04:37:38Z)
• 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)
• ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativeness [67.49087159888298]
  ReCEval is a framework that evaluates reasoning chains via two key properties: correctness and informativeness. We show that ReCEval effectively identifies various error types and yields notable improvements compared to prior methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T02:19:06Z)
• Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [51.21714389639417]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting boosts Language Models' (LM) performance on a gamut of reasoning tasks. We propose Faithful CoT, a reasoning framework involving two stages: Translation and Problem Solving. This guarantees that the reasoning chain provides a faithful explanation of the final answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T03:04:26Z)
• PRover: Proof Generation for Interpretable Reasoning over Rules [81.40404921232192]
  We propose a transformer-based model that answers binary questions over rule-bases and generates the corresponding proofs. Our model learns to predict nodes and edges corresponding to proof graphs in an efficient constrained training paradigm. We conduct experiments on synthetic, hand-authored, and human-paraphrased rule-bases to show promising results for QA and proof generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T15:47:53Z)

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.