General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00204v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:15:17 GMT
• Title: General Purpose Verification for Chain of Thought Prompting
• Authors: Robert Vacareanu, Anurag Pratik, Evangelia Spiliopoulou, Zheng Qi, Giovanni Paolini, Neha Anna John, Jie Ma, Yassine Benajiba, Miguel Ballesteros,
• Abstract summary: We explore ways to improve reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose three general principles that a model should adhere to while reasoning. We apply these constraints to the reasoning steps generated by the LLM to improve the accuracy of the final generation.
• Score: 16.381123651223763
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many of the recent capabilities demonstrated by Large Language Models (LLMs) arise primarily from their ability to exploit contextual information. In this paper, we explore ways to improve reasoning capabilities of LLMs through (1) exploration of different chains of thought and (2) validation of the individual steps of the reasoning process. We propose three general principles that a model should adhere to while reasoning: (i) Relevance, (ii) Mathematical Accuracy, and (iii) Logical Consistency. We apply these constraints to the reasoning steps generated by the LLM to improve the accuracy of the final generation. The constraints are applied in the form of verifiers: the model itself is asked to verify if the generated steps satisfy each constraint. To further steer the generations towards high-quality solutions, we use the perplexity of the reasoning steps as an additional verifier. We evaluate our method on 4 distinct types of reasoning tasks, spanning a total of 9 different datasets. Experiments show that our method is always better than vanilla generation, and, in 6 out of the 9 datasets, it is better than best-of N sampling which samples N reasoning chains and picks the lowest perplexity generation.

Related papers

• A Comparative Study on Reasoning Patterns of OpenAI's o1 Model [69.08287909042421]
  We show that OpenAI's o1 model has achieved the best performance on most datasets. We also provide a detailed analysis on several reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:09:03Z)
• P-FOLIO: Evaluating and Improving Logical Reasoning with Abundant Human-Written Reasoning Chains [97.25943550933829]
  We present P-FOLIO, a human-annotated dataset consisting of diverse and complex reasoning chains. We use P-FOLIO to evaluate and improve large-language-model (LLM) reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T19:22:57Z)
• Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction [29.543787728397643]
  Verifiers or reward models are often used to enhance the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) We propose training verifiers using the ubiquitous next-token prediction objective, jointly on verification and solution generation. We demonstrate that GenRM outperforms discriminative, DPO verifiers, and LLM-as-a-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T17:57:45Z)
• Enhancing Numerical Reasoning with the Guidance of Reliable Reasoning Processes [55.2326738851157]
  We introduce Enhancing NumeriCal reasOning with Reliable procEsses (Encore), which derives the reliable reasoning process by decomposing the answer formula. We present a series of pre-training tasks to help models learn the reasoning process generation with synthesized data. Experiments show that Encore yields improvement on all five experimental datasets with an average of 1.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:02:11Z)
• MUSTARD: Mastering Uniform Synthesis of Theorem and Proof Data [85.50740598523818]
  MUSTARD is a framework that masters uniform synthesis of theorem and proof data of high quality and diversity. We present a theorem-and-proof benchmark MUSTARDSAUCE with 5,866 valid data points. We perform extensive analysis and demonstrate that MUSTARD generates validated high-quality step-by-step data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T05:57:58Z)
• DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
  We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy. First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights. We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z)
• Guiding Language Model Reasoning with Planning Tokens [122.43639723387516]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently attracted considerable interest for their ability to perform complex reasoning tasks. We propose a hierarchical generation scheme to encourage a more structural generation of chain-of-thought steps. Our approach requires a negligible increase in trainable parameters (0.001%) and can be applied through either full fine-tuning or a more parameter-efficient scheme.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T13:29:37Z)
• Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models [12.132449274592668]
  We show how LMs can be made to perform faithful multi-step reasoning via a process whose causal structure mirrors the underlying logical structure of the problem. Our approach works by chaining together reasoning steps, where each step results from calls to two fine-tuned LMs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model on multi-step logical deduction and scientific question-answering, showing that it outperforms baselines on final answer accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T13:44:41Z)

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.