On the Brittle Foundations of ReAct Prompting for Agentic Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13966v1
• Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 20:05:49 GMT
• Title: On the Brittle Foundations of ReAct Prompting for Agentic Large Language Models
• Authors: Mudit Verma, Siddhant Bhambri, Subbarao Kambhampati,
• Abstract summary: The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) is driven by the similarity between input example tasks and queries. Our investigation shows that the perceived reasoning abilities of LLMs stem from the exemplar-query similarity and approximate retrieval.
• Score: 16.701242561345786
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) remain a topic of debate. Some methods such as ReAct-based prompting, have gained popularity for claiming to enhance sequential decision-making abilities of agentic LLMs. However, it is unclear what is the source of improvement in LLM reasoning with ReAct based prompting. In this paper we examine these claims of ReAct based prompting in improving agentic LLMs for sequential decision-making. By introducing systematic variations to the input prompt we perform a sensitivity analysis along the claims of ReAct and find that the performance is minimally influenced by the "interleaving reasoning trace with action execution" or the content of the generated reasoning traces in ReAct, contrary to original claims and common usage. Instead, the performance of LLMs is driven by the similarity between input example tasks and queries, implicitly forcing the prompt designer to provide instance-specific examples which significantly increases the cognitive burden on the human. Our investigation shows that the perceived reasoning abilities of LLMs stem from the exemplar-query similarity and approximate retrieval rather than any inherent reasoning abilities.

Related papers

• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We show that prompting-based rationales align better with human-annotated rationales than attribution-based rationales. We additionally find that the faithfulness limitations of prompting-based methods, which are identified in previous work, may be linked to their collapsed predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Controlling Large Language Model Agents with Entropic Activation Steering [20.56909601159833]
  We study how large language models (LLMs) form and act on beliefs by conducting experiments in controlled sequential decision-making tasks. We show that LLM agents are overconfident: They draw strong conclusions about what to do based on insufficient evidence, resulting in inadequately explorative behavior. We introduce Entropic Activation Steering (EAST), an activation steering method for in-context LLM agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T00:25:00Z)
• Aggregation of Reasoning: A Hierarchical Framework for Enhancing Answer Selection in Large Language Models [84.15513004135576]
  Current research enhances the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning chains and ensembling based on the answer frequency. This approach fails in scenarios where the correct answers are in the minority. We introduce a hierarchical reasoning aggregation framework AoR, which selects answers based on the evaluation of reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T17:12:19Z)
• Can formal argumentative reasoning enhance LLMs performances? [0.3659498819753633]
  We present a pipeline (MQArgEng) to evaluate the effect of introducing computational argumentation semantics on the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) Exploratory results indicate that MQArgEng provides a moderate performance gain in most of the examined topical categories and, as such, show promise and warrant further research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-16T22:09:31Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Wait, It's All Token Noise? Always Has Been: Interpreting LLM Behavior Using Shapley Value [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Causal Prompting: Debiasing Large Language Model Prompting based on Front-Door Adjustment [32.12998469814097]
  A novel causal prompting method based on front-door adjustment is proposed to effectively mitigate Large Language Models (LLMs) biases. Experimental results show that the proposed causal prompting approach achieves excellent performance across seven natural language processing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T07:47:34Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection [74.51523859064802]
  We introduce a new framework called Self-Reflective Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Self-RAG) Self-RAG enhances an LM's quality and factuality through retrieval and self-reflection. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and retrieval-augmented models on a diverse set of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:18:32Z)
• Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models [32.71672086718057]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit failure patterns akin to human-like cognitive biases when dealing with disordered and irrelevant content in reasoning tasks. We propose a novel reasoning approach named Concise and Organized Perception (COP) COP carefully analyzes the given statements to identify the most pertinent information while eliminating redundancy efficiently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T04:47:49Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.89346248535922]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

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.