Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16478v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:03:14 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models
• Authors: Yash Saxena, Sarthak Chopra, Arunendra Mani Tripathi,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance, for tasks such as text generation, summarization, and translation. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This behavior can be attributed to several factors, with consistency and reasoning capabilities being significant contributors. LLMs frequently lack the ability to generate explanations and engage in coherent reasoning, leading to inaccurate responses. Moreover, they exhibit inconsistencies in their outputs. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs. The experiments utilize the Boolq dataset as the ground truth, comprising questions, answers, and corresponding explanations. Queries from the dataset are presented as prompts to the LLMs, and the generated responses are evaluated against the ground truth answers. Additionally, explanations are generated to assess the models' reasoning abilities. Consistency is evaluated by repeatedly presenting the same query to the models and observing for variations in their responses. For measuring reasoning capabilities, the generated explanations are compared to the ground truth explanations using metrics such as BERT, BLEU, and F-1 scores. The findings reveal that proprietary models generally outperform public models in terms of both consistency and reasoning capabilities. However, even when presented with basic general knowledge questions, none of the models achieved a score of 90\% in both consistency and reasoning. This study underscores the direct correlation between consistency and reasoning abilities in LLMs and highlights the inherent reasoning challenges present in current language models.

Related papers

• Testing Uncertainty of Large Language Models for Physics Knowledge and Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant popularity in recent years for their ability to answer questions in various fields. We introduce an analysis for evaluating the performance of popular open-source LLMs. We focus on the relationship between answer accuracy and variability in topics related to physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T13:42:13Z)
• Reasoning or a Semblance of it? A Diagnostic Study of Transitive Reasoning in LLMs [11.805264893752154]
  We evaluate the reasoning capabilities of two large language models, LLaMA 2 and Flan-T5, by manipulating facts within two compositional datasets: QASC and Bamboogle. Our findings reveal that while both models leverage (a), Flan-T5 shows more resilience to experiments, having less variance than LLaMA 2. This suggests that models may develop an understanding of transitivity through fine-tuning on knowingly relevant datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T15:09:07Z)
• MIRAGE: Evaluating and Explaining Inductive Reasoning Process in Language Models [19.81485079689837]
  We evaluate large language models' capabilities in inductive and deductive stages. We find that the models tend to consistently conduct correct deduction without correct inductive rules. In the inductive reasoning process, the model tends to focus on observed facts that are close to the current test example in feature space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T14:12:36Z)
• Evaluating the Reliability of Self-Explanations in Large Language Models [2.8894038270224867]
  We evaluate two kinds of such self-explanations - extractive and counterfactual. Our findings reveal, that, while these self-explanations can correlate with human judgement, they do not fully and accurately follow the model's decision process. We show that this gap can be bridged because prompting LLMs for counterfactual explanations can produce faithful, informative, and easy-to-verify results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T17:41:08Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• 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)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Getting MoRE out of Mixture of Language Model Reasoning Experts [71.61176122960464]
  We propose a Mixture-of-Reasoning-Experts (MoRE) framework that ensembles diverse specialized language models. We specialize the backbone language model with prompts optimized for different reasoning categories, including factual, multihop, mathematical, and commonsense reasoning. Our human study confirms that presenting expert predictions and the answer selection process helps annotators more accurately calibrate when to trust the system's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:00:51Z)
• Can NLP Models Correctly Reason Over Contexts that Break the Common Assumptions? [14.991565484636745]
  We investigate the ability of NLP models to correctly reason over contexts that break the common assumptions. We show that while doing fairly well on contexts that follow the common assumptions, the models struggle to correctly reason over contexts that break those assumptions. Specifically, the performance gap is as high as 20% absolute points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T05:20:37Z)
• Did the Cat Drink the Coffee? Challenging Transformers with Generalized Event Knowledge [59.22170796793179]
  Transformers Language Models (TLMs) were tested on a benchmark for the textitdynamic estimation of thematic fit Our results show that TLMs can reach performances that are comparable to those achieved by SDM. However, additional analysis consistently suggests that TLMs do not capture important aspects of event knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-22T20:52:26Z)

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.