System-2 Mathematical Reasoning via Enriched Instruction Tuning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16964v2
• Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 11:43:25 GMT
• Title: System-2 Mathematical Reasoning via Enriched Instruction Tuning
• Authors: Huanqia Cai, Yijun Yang, Zhifeng Li,
• Abstract summary: Enriched Instruction Tuning (EIT) is a method that enriches existing human-annotated mathematical datasets by synergizing human and AI feedback. EIT achieves an accuracy of 84.1% on GSM8K and 32.5% on MATH, surpassing state-of-the-art fine-tuning and prompting methods.
• Score: 13.672967091915181
• License:
• Abstract: Solving complex mathematical problems via system-2 reasoning is a natural human skill, yet it remains a significant challenge for current large language models (LLMs). We identify the scarcity of deliberate multi-step reasoning data as a primary limiting factor. To this end, we introduce Enriched Instruction Tuning (EIT), a method that enriches existing human-annotated mathematical datasets by synergizing human and AI feedback to create fine-grained reasoning trajectories. These datasets are then used to fine-tune open-source LLMs, enhancing their mathematical reasoning abilities without reliance on any symbolic verification program. Concretely, EIT is composed of two critical steps: Enriching with Reasoning Plan (ERP) and Enriching with Reasoning Step (ERS). The former generates a high-level plan that breaks down complex instructions into a sequence of simpler objectives, while ERS fills in reasoning contexts often overlooked by human annotators, creating a smoother reasoning trajectory for LLM fine-tuning. Unlike existing CoT prompting methods that generate reasoning chains only depending on LLM's internal knowledge, our method leverages human-annotated initial answers as ``meta-knowledge'' to help LLMs generate more detailed and precise reasoning processes, leading to a more trustworthy LLM expert for complex mathematical problems. In experiments, EIT achieves an accuracy of 84.1% on GSM8K and 32.5% on MATH, surpassing state-of-the-art fine-tuning and prompting methods, and even matching the performance of tool-augmented methods.

Related papers

• Proving Olympiad Inequalities by Synergizing LLMs and Symbolic Reasoning [27.562284768743694]
  Large language models (LLMs) can prove mathematical theorems formally by generating proof steps within a proof system. We introduce a neuro-symbolic tactic generator that synergizes the mathematical intuition learned by LLMs with domain-specific insights encoded by symbolic methods. We evaluate our framework on 161 challenging inequalities from multiple mathematics competitions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T15:54:21Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• 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)
• AlphaMath Almost Zero: Process Supervision without Process [6.318873143509028]
  We propose an innovative framework, AlphaMath, that bypasses the need for process annotations by leveraging Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) This framework focuses on unleashing the potential of a well-pretrained LLM to autonomously enhance its mathematical reasoning. The experimental results on both in-domain and out-of-domain datasets demonstrate that even without GPT-4 or human-annotated process supervision, our AlphaMath framework achieves comparable or superior results to previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T15:20:30Z)
• Dual Instruction Tuning with Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning [26.00472810721806]
  We propose a dual instruction tuning strategy to model mathematical reasoning from both forward and reverse directions. This involves introducing the Intermediate Reasoning State Prediction task (forward reasoning) and the Instruction Reconstruction task (reverse reasoning) to enhance the LLMs' understanding and execution of instructions. Comprehensive experiments validate the effectiveness and domain generalization of the dual instruction tuning strategy across various mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T06:43:58Z)
• Efficient Tool Use with Chain-of-Abstraction Reasoning [63.08202389132155]
  Large language models (LLMs) need to ground their reasoning to real-world knowledge. There remains challenges for fine-tuning LLM agents to invoke tools in multi-step reasoning problems. We propose a new method for LLMs to better leverage tools in multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T21:53:30Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
  We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets. We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting [68.40726892904286]
  We propose a new satisfiability-aided language modeling (SatLM) approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We use an LLM to generate a declarative task specification rather than an imperative program and leverage an off-the-shelf automated theorem prover to derive the final answer. We evaluate SATLM on 8 different datasets and show that it consistently outperforms program-aided LMs in the imperative paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T17:55:51Z)

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.