Evaluating the Robustness of Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14215v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:25:08 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Robustness of Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Authors: Martha Lewis, Melanie Mitchell,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the robustness of analogy-making abilities previously claimed for LLMs. We test humans and GPT models on robustness to variants of the original analogy problems. Unlike humans, the performance of GPT models are susceptible to answer-order effects.
• Score: 6.5855735579366685
• License:
• Abstract: LLMs have performed well on several reasoning benchmarks, including ones that test analogical reasoning abilities. However, there is debate on the extent to which they are performing general abstract reasoning versus employing non-robust processes, e.g., that overly rely on similarity to pre-training data. Here we investigate the robustness of analogy-making abilities previously claimed for LLMs on three of four domains studied by Webb, Holyoak, and Lu (2023): letter-string analogies, digit matrices, and story analogies. For each domain we test humans and GPT models on robustness to variants of the original analogy problems that test the same abstract reasoning abilities but are likely dissimilar from tasks in the pre-training data. The performance of a system that uses robust abstract reasoning should not decline substantially on these variants. On simple letter-string analogies, we find that while the performance of humans remains high for two types of variants we tested, the GPT models' performance declines sharply. This pattern is less pronounced as the complexity of these problems is increased, as both humans and GPT models perform poorly on both the original and variant problems requiring more complex analogies. On digit-matrix problems, we find a similar pattern but only on one out of the two types of variants we tested. On story-based analogy problems, we find that, unlike humans, the performance of GPT models are susceptible to answer-order effects, and that GPT models also may be more sensitive than humans to paraphrasing. This work provides evidence that LLMs often lack the robustness of zero-shot human analogy-making, exhibiting brittleness on most of the variations we tested. More generally, this work points to the importance of carefully evaluating AI systems not only for accuracy but also robustness when testing their cognitive capabilities.

Related papers

• AnaloBench: Benchmarking the Identification of Abstract and Long-context Analogies [19.613777134600408]
  Analogical thinking allows humans to solve problems in creative ways. Can language models (LMs) do the same? benchmarking approach focuses on aspects of this ability that are common among humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:56:44Z)
• Using Counterfactual Tasks to Evaluate the Generality of Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models [7.779982757267302]
  We investigate the generality of analogy-making abilities previously claimed for large language models (LLMs) We show that while the performance of humans remains high for all the problems, the GPT models' performance declines sharply on the counterfactual set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T05:52:23Z)
• StoryAnalogy: Deriving Story-level Analogies from Large Language Models to Unlock Analogical Understanding [72.38872974837462]
  We evaluate the ability to identify and generate analogies by constructing a first-of-its-kind large-scale story-level analogy corpus. textscStory Analogy contains 24K story pairs from diverse domains with human annotations on two similarities from the extended Structure-Mapping Theory. We observe that the data in textscStory Analogy can improve the quality of analogy generation in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T16:29:23Z)
• Response: Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models [0.034530027457862]
  GPT-3 fails to solve simplest variations of the original tasks, whereas human performance remains consistently high across all modified versions. To strengthen claims of humanlike reasoning such as zero-shot reasoning, it is important to develop approaches that rule out data memorization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T16:17:26Z)
• ANALOGYKB: Unlocking Analogical Reasoning of Language Models with A Million-scale Knowledge Base [51.777618249271725]
  ANALOGYKB is a million-scale analogy knowledge base derived from existing knowledge graphs (KGs) It identifies two types of analogies from the KGs: 1) analogies of the same relations, which can be directly extracted from the KGs, and 2) analogies of analogous relations, which are identified with a selection and filtering pipeline enabled by large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T09:03:01Z)
• Emergent Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models [1.5469452301122177]
  We show that GPT-3 has a surprisingly strong capacity for abstract pattern induction, matching or even surpassing human capabilities in most settings. Our results indicate that large language models such as GPT-3 have acquired an emergent ability to find zero-shot solutions to a broad range of analogy problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T00:04:56Z)
• A Causal Framework to Quantify the Robustness of Mathematical Reasoning with Language Models [81.15974174627785]
  We study the behavior of language models in terms of robustness and sensitivity to direct interventions in the input space. Our analysis shows that robustness does not appear to continuously improve as a function of size, but the GPT-3 Davinci models (175B) achieve a dramatic improvement in both robustness and sensitivity compared to all other GPT variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T15:12:37Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• A comprehensive comparative evaluation and analysis of Distributional Semantic Models [61.41800660636555]
  We perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. The results show that the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous. We borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T15:18:06Z)
• Visual analogy: Deep learning versus compositional models [3.2435333321661983]
  We compare human performance on visual analogies with the performance of alternative computational models. Human reasoners achieved above-chance accuracy for all problem types, but made more errors in several conditions. The compositional model based on part representations, but not the deep learning models, generated qualitative performance similar to that of human reasoners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-14T20:56:02Z)
• Few-shot Visual Reasoning with Meta-analogical Contrastive Learning [141.2562447971]
  We propose to solve a few-shot (or low-shot) visual reasoning problem, by resorting to analogical reasoning. We extract structural relationships between elements in both domains, and enforce them to be as similar as possible with analogical learning. We validate our method on RAVEN dataset, on which it outperforms state-of-the-art method, with larger gains when the training data is scarce.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-23T14:00:34Z)

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.