Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Key Condition Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14092v3
• Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 02:00:53 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Key Condition Verification
• Authors: Zhenyu Wu, Qingkai Zeng, Zhihan Zhang, Zhaoxuan Tan, Chao Shen, Meng Jiang,
• Abstract summary: We find that a simple yet effective verification method can unleash inherent capabilities of large language models. We propose an iterative verify-then-correct framework to progressively identify and correct (probably) false responses.
• Score: 39.67266805233599
• License:
• Abstract: Intrinsic self-correct was a method that instructed large language models (LLMs) to verify and correct their responses without external feedback. Unfortunately, the study concluded that the LLMs could not self-correct reasoning yet. We find that a simple yet effective verification method can unleash inherent capabilities of the LLMs. That is to mask a key condition in the question, add the current response to construct a verification question, and predict the condition to verify the response. The condition can be an entity in an open-domain question or a numeric value in a math question, which requires minimal effort (via prompting) to identify. We propose an iterative verify-then-correct framework to progressively identify and correct (probably) false responses, named ProCo. We conduct experiments on three reasoning tasks. On average, ProCo, with GPT-3.5-Turbo as the backend LLM, yields $+6.8$ exact match on four open-domain question answering datasets, $+14.1$ accuracy on three arithmetic reasoning datasets, and $+9.6$ accuracy on a commonsense reasoning dataset, compared to Self-Correct. Our implementation is made publicly available at https://wzy6642.github.io/proco.github.io/.

Related papers

• Can Language Models Explain Their Own Classification Behavior? [1.8177391253202122]
  Large language models (LLMs) perform well at a myriad of tasks, but explaining the processes behind this performance is a challenge. This paper investigates whether LLMs can give faithful high-level explanations of their own internal processes. We release our dataset, ArticulateRules, which can be used to test self-explanation for LLMs trained either in-context or by finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T02:31:08Z)
• Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning [69.94251699982388]
  Self-correction has emerged as a promising solution to boost the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) This work explores whether small (= 13B) language models (LMs) have the ability of self-correction on reasoning tasks with minimal inputs from stronger LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T03:41:28Z)
• Learning to Check: Unleashing Potentials for Self-Correction in Large Language Models [5.463333911506443]
  We aim to enhance the self-checking capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by constructing training data for checking tasks. We propose a specialized checking format called "Step CoT Check" Experiments demonstrate that fine-tuning with the "Step CoT Check" format significantly improves the self-checking and self-correction abilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T14:23:23Z)
• PEDANTS: Cheap but Effective and Interpretable Answer Equivalence [10.367359022491181]
  We provide rubrics and datasets for evaluating machine QA adopted from the Trivia community. We also propose an efficient, and interpretable QA evaluation that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods(BERTScore)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T01:56:19Z)
• 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)
• Get an A in Math: Progressive Rectification Prompting [42.09762345892869]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting methods have enabled large language models (LLMs) to generate reasoning paths and solve math word problems (MWPs) We propose a novel method named Progressive Rectification Prompting (PRP) to improve average accuracy on eight MWP datasets from 77.3 to 90.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T22:25:57Z)
• Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers [121.53749383203792]
  We present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of large language models (LLMs)-generated responses. We construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity are struggling to identify false claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:41:57Z)
• Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification [48.534270563880845]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning ability in several natural language processing tasks. LLMs with chain of thought (CoT) prompting require multi-step prompting and multi-token prediction, which is highly sensitive to individual mistakes. We propose and prove that LLMs also have similar self-verification abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T15:51:52Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)

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.