Steamroller Problems: An Evaluation of LLM Reasoning Capability with Automated Theorem Prover Strategies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20244v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 22:49:23 GMT
• Title: Steamroller Problems: An Evaluation of LLM Reasoning Capability with Automated Theorem Prover Strategies
• Authors: Lachlan McGinness, Peter Baumgartner,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the performance of GPT4, GPT3.5 Turbo and Google's recent Gemini model on problems from a steamroller domain. We found that the models' performance when using the ATP reasoning strategies was comparable to one-shot chain of thought.
• Score: 0.18416014644193066
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study presents the first examination of the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to follow reasoning strategies that are used to guide Automated Theorem Provers (ATPs). We evaluate the performance of GPT4, GPT3.5 Turbo and Google's recent Gemini model on problems from a steamroller domain. In addition to determining accuracy we make use of the Natural Language Processing library spaCy to explore new methods of investigating LLM's reasoning capabilities. This led to one alarming result, the low correlation between correct reasoning and correct answers for any of the tested models. We found that the models' performance when using the ATP reasoning strategies was comparable to one-shot chain of thought and observe that attention to uncertainty in the accuracy results is critical when drawing conclusions about model performance. Consistent with previous speculation we confirm that LLMs have a preference for, and are best able to follow, bottom up reasoning processes. However, the reasoning strategies can still be beneficial for deriving small and relevant sets of formulas for external processing by a trusted inference engine.

Related papers

• Think Deep, Think Fast: Investigating Efficiency of Verifier-free Inference-time-scaling Methods [39.89239733570008]
  This work conducts a comprehensive analysis of inference-time scaling methods for both reasoning and non-reasoning models. We find that non-reasoning models, even with an extremely high inference budget, still fall substantially behind reasoning models. For reasoning models, majority voting proves to be a robust inference strategy, generally competitive or outperforming other more sophisticated ITC methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T19:32:55Z)
• Have Large Language Models Learned to Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT Phase Transition [11.422434149376478]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been touted as AI models possessing advanced reasoning abilities. In theory, autoregressive LLMs with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) can perform more serial computations to solve complex reasoning tasks. Recent studies suggest that, despite this capacity, LLMs do not truly learn to reason but instead fit on statistical features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T20:57:36Z)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step. Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy. We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM) R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models [54.04678363287392]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex tasks. Recent advancements in OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1 have further improved performance in System-2 reasoning domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T17:59:38Z)
• Towards Thinking-Optimal Scaling of Test-Time Compute for LLM Reasoning [113.49074603075032]
  Recent studies have shown that making a model spend more time thinking through longer Chain of Thoughts (CoTs) enables it to gain significant improvements in complex reasoning tasks. We explore whether scaling with longer CoTs can indeed impair the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in certain domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T10:48:05Z)
• Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs [76.43407125275202]
  o1-like models can emulate human-like long-time thinking during inference. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on the prevalent issue of overthinking in these models. We propose strategies to mitigate overthinking, streamlining reasoning processes without compromising accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T18:55:12Z)
• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• Lachesis: Predicting LLM Inference Accuracy using Structural Properties of Reasoning Paths [12.377041655669728]
  We introduce Lachesis, a predictive model for self-consistency based LLM inferences. We empirically evaluate it using AutoFL, a recently proposed LLM-based fault localisation technique. Results suggest that Lachesis can predict the correctness of answers with a precision of up to 0.8136.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T10:56:47Z)
• Language Models are Hidden Reasoners: Unlocking Latent Reasoning Capabilities via Self-Rewarding [74.31981011985681]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities, but still struggle with complex reasoning tasks requiring multiple steps. We introduce LaTent Reasoning Optimization (LaTRO), a principled framework that formulates reasoning as sampling from a latent distribution. We validate LaTRO through experiments on GSM8K and ARC-Challenge datasets using multiple model architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T22:02:30Z)
• 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)
• Improve Vision Language Model Chain-of-thought Reasoning [86.83335752119741]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning in vision language models (VLMs) is crucial for improving interpretability and trustworthiness. We show that training VLM on short answers does not generalize well to reasoning tasks that require more detailed responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:00:06Z)
• Will LLMs Replace the Encoder-Only Models in Temporal Relation Classification? [2.1861408994125253]
  Large Language Models (LLM) have recently shown promising performance in temporal reasoning tasks. Recent studies have tested the LLMs' performance in detecting temporal relations of closed-source models only.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T13:10:45Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• MindStar: Enhancing Math Reasoning in Pre-trained LLMs at Inference Time [51.5039731721706]
  MindStar is a purely inference-based searching method for large language models. It formulates reasoning tasks as searching problems and proposes two search ideas to identify the optimal reasoning paths. It significantly enhances the reasoning abilities of open-source models, such as Llama-2-13B and Mistral-7B, and achieves comparable performance to GPT-3.5 and Grok-1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T15:07:33Z)
• 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)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning [61.523627290397556]
  We introduce a stepwise self-evaluation mechanism to guide and calibrate the reasoning process of Large Language Model (LLM) We propose a decoding algorithm integrating the self-evaluation guidance via beam search. Our approach surpasses the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines in few-shot accuracy by $6.34%$, $9.56%$, and $5.46%$ on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T02:37:59Z)

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.