Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models: In-Depth Analysis on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11793v3
• Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:26:41 GMT
• Title: Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models: In-Depth Analysis on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus
• Authors: Seungpil Lee, Woochang Sim, Donghyeon Shin, Wongyu Seo, Jiwon Park, Seokki Lee, Sanha Hwang, Sejin Kim, Sundong Kim,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel approach to evaluate the inference and contextual understanding abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) We focus on three key components from the Language of Thought Hypothesis (LoTH): Logical Coherence, Compositionality, and Productivity. Our experiments reveal that while LLMs demonstrate some inference capabilities, they still significantly lag behind human-level reasoning in these three aspects.
• Score: 4.569421189811511
• License:
• Abstract: The existing methods for evaluating the inference abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have been predominantly results-centric, making it challenging to assess the inference process comprehensively. We introduce a novel approach using the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) benchmark to evaluate the inference and contextual understanding abilities of LLMs in a process-centric manner, focusing on three key components from the Language of Thought Hypothesis (LoTH): Logical Coherence, Compositionality, and Productivity. Our carefully designed experiments reveal that while LLMs demonstrate some inference capabilities, they still significantly lag behind human-level reasoning in these three aspects. The main contribution of this paper lies in introducing the LoTH perspective, which provides a method for evaluating the reasoning process that conventional results-oriented approaches fail to capture, thereby offering new insights into the development of human-level reasoning in artificial intelligence systems.

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)
• Logical Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey [17.06712393613964]
  This survey synthesizes recent advancements in logical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) It outlines the scope of logical reasoning in LLMs, its theoretical foundations, and the benchmarks used to evaluate reasoning proficiency. The review concludes with future directions, emphasizing the need for further exploration to strengthen logical reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T09:19:14Z)
• 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)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences [5.141416267381492]
  We consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. We investigate the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning on syllogistic reasoning. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by cognitive science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T08:59:04Z)
• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)
• Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans. Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z)
• Learning Planning-based Reasoning by Trajectories Collection and Process Reward Synthesizing [61.98556945939045]
  We propose a framework to learn planning-based reasoning through Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) on collected trajectories. Our results on challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our learning framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T15:18:33Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• 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.