Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs' Errors to Boost for Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.20046v2
• Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 06:27:50 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs' Errors to Boost for Reasoning
• Authors: Yongqi Tong, Dawei Li, Sizhe Wang, Yujia Wang, Fei Teng, Jingbo Shang,
• Abstract summary: textscCoTErrorSet, a new benchmark with 609,432 questions, each designed with both correct and error references. textbfSelf-rethinking prompting guides LLMs to rethink whether they have made similar previous mistakes. textbfMistake tuning involves finetuning models in both correct and incorrect reasoning domains.
• Score: 34.34977150518316
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent works have shown the benefits to LLMs from fine-tuning golden-standard Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales or using them as correct examples in few-shot prompting. While humans can indeed imitate correct examples, learning from our mistakes is another vital aspect of human cognition. Hence, a question naturally arises: \textit{can LLMs learn and benefit from their mistakes, especially for their reasoning? } This study investigates this problem from both the prompting and model-tuning perspectives. We begin by introducing \textsc{CoTErrorSet}, a new benchmark with 609,432 questions, each designed with both correct and error references, and demonstrating the types and reasons for making such mistakes. To explore the effectiveness of those mistakes, we design two methods: (1) \textbf{Self-rethinking} prompting guides LLMs to rethink whether they have made similar previous mistakes; and (2) \textbf{Mistake tuning} involves finetuning models in both correct and incorrect reasoning domains, rather than only tuning models to learn ground truth in traditional methodology. We conduct a series of experiments to prove LLMs can obtain benefits from mistakes in both directions. Our two methods offer potentially cost-effective strategies by leveraging errors to enhance reasoning capabilities, which costs significantly less than creating meticulously hand-crafted golden references. We ultimately make a thorough analysis of the reasons behind LLMs' errors, which provides directions that future research needs to overcome. \textsc{CoTErrorSet} will be published soon on \texttt{\url{https://github.com/YookiTong/Learn-from-Mistakes-CotErrorSet}}.

Related papers

• A Deep Dive Into Large Language Model Code Generation Mistakes: What and Why? [9.246899995643918]
  Large Language Models can still generate defective code that deviates from the specification. Seven categories of non-syntactic mistakes were identified through extensive manual analyses. Our evaluation demonstrated that GPT-4 with the ReAct prompting technique can achieve an F1 score of up to 0.65 when identifying reasons for LLM's mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T02:47:03Z)
• Varying Shades of Wrong: Aligning LLMs with Wrong Answers Only [37.36302216137465]
  We use methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences. Experiments show that LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T20:01:52Z)
• The Earth is Flat? Unveiling Factual Errors in Large Language Models [89.94270049334479]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are in various applications due to their extensive knowledge from pre-training and fine-tuning. Despite this, they are prone to generating factual and commonsense errors, raising concerns in critical areas like healthcare, journalism, and education. We introduce a novel, automatic testing framework, FactChecker, aimed at uncovering factual inaccuracies in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T14:02:27Z)
• LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback [65.84061725174269]
  Recent large language models (LLM) are leveraging human feedback to improve their generation quality. We propose LLMRefine, an inference time optimization method to refine LLM's output. We conduct experiments on three text generation tasks, including machine translation, long-form question answering (QA), and topical summarization. LLMRefine consistently outperforms all baseline approaches, achieving improvements up to 1.7 MetricX points on translation tasks, 8.1 ROUGE-L on ASQA, 2.2 ROUGE-L on topical summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:52:11Z)
• LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location [0.9017736137562115]
  Poor self-correction performance stems from LLMs' inability to find logical mistakes, rather than their ability to correct a known mistake. We benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on their mistake-finding ability and demonstrate that they generally struggle with the task. We show that it is possible to obtain mistake location information without ground truth labels or in-domain training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T20:12:38Z)
• 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)
• Learning From Mistakes Makes LLM Better Reasoner [106.48571828587728]
  Large language models (LLMs) recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities on solving math problems. This work explores whether LLMs can LEarn from MistAkes (LEMA), akin to the human learning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T17:52:22Z)
• TIM: Teaching Large Language Models to Translate with Comparison [78.66926087162672]
  We propose a novel framework using examples in comparison to teach LLMs to learn translation. Our approach involves presenting the model with examples of correct and incorrect translations and using a preference loss to guide the model's learning. Our findings offer a new perspective on fine-tuning LLMs for translation tasks and provide a promising solution for generating high-quality translations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T08:15:40Z)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)

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.