Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18711v2
• Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 04:01:28 GMT
• Title: Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency
• Authors: Zhihui Xie, Jizhou Guo, Tong Yu, Shuai Li,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks. LLMs often generate text with obvious mistakes and contradictions. In this work, we investigate reasoning in LLMs through the lens of internal representations.
• Score: 18.24350001344488
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks, aided by techniques like chain-of-thought prompting that elicits verbalized reasoning. However, LLMs often generate text with obvious mistakes and contradictions, raising doubts about their ability to robustly process and utilize generated rationales. In this work, we investigate reasoning in LLMs through the lens of internal representations, focusing on how these representations are influenced by generated rationales. Our preliminary analysis reveals that while generated rationales improve answer accuracy, inconsistencies emerge between the model's internal representations in middle layers and those in final layers, potentially undermining the reliability of their reasoning processes. To address this, we propose internal consistency as a measure of the model's confidence by examining the agreement of latent predictions decoded from intermediate layers. Extensive empirical studies across different models and datasets demonstrate that internal consistency effectively distinguishes between correct and incorrect reasoning paths. Motivated by this, we propose a new approach to calibrate reasoning by up-weighting reasoning paths with high internal consistency, resulting in a significant boost in reasoning performance. Further analysis uncovers distinct patterns in attention and feed-forward modules across layers, providing insights into the emergence of internal inconsistency. In summary, our results demonstrate the potential of using internal representations for self-evaluation of LLMs. Our code is available at github.com/zhxieml/internal-consistency.

Related papers

• Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks. They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct. We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z)
• Bridging Interpretability and Robustness Using LIME-Guided Model Refinement [0.0]
  Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) systematically enhance model robustness. Empirical evaluations on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that LIME-guided refinement not only improves interpretability but also significantly enhances resistance to adversarial perturbations and generalization to out-of-distribution data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-25T17:32:45Z)
• Internal Consistency and Self-Feedback in Large Language Models: A Survey [19.647988281648253]
  We use a unified perspective of internal consistency, offering explanations for reasoning deficiencies and hallucinations. We introduce an effective theoretical framework capable of mining internal consistency, named Self-Feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T17:59:03Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks. In this paper, we 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. These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans. Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z)
• Sparsity-Guided Holistic Explanation for LLMs with Interpretable Inference-Time Intervention [53.896974148579346]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented breakthroughs in various natural language processing domains. The enigmatic black-box'' nature of LLMs remains a significant challenge for interpretability, hampering transparent and accountable applications. We propose a novel methodology anchored in sparsity-guided techniques, aiming to provide a holistic interpretation of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T19:55:58Z)
• 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)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning [23.34325378824462]
  Large language models (LLMs) are difficult to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior. One approach is to prompt LLMs to externalize their reasoning, by having them generate step-by-step reasoning as they answer a question. This approach relies on the stated reasoning faithfully reflecting the model's actual reasoning, which is not always the case. Decomposition-based methods achieve strong performance on question-answering tasks, sometimes approaching that of CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T00:54:10Z)

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.