Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18626v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 22:47:08 GMT
• Title: Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?
• Authors: Tairan Fu, Raquel Ferrando, Javier Conde, Carlos Arriaga, Pedro Reviriego,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance on many complex tasks. They struggle with other simple tasks, such as counting the occurrences of letters in a word.
• Score: 2.8367942280334493
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance on many complex tasks, being able, for example, to answer questions on almost any topic. However, they struggle with other simple tasks, such as counting the occurrences of letters in a word, as illustrated by the inability of many LLMs to count the number of "r" letters in "strawberry". Several works have studied this problem and linked it to the tokenization used by LLMs, to the intrinsic limitations of the attention mechanism, or to the lack of character-level training data. In this paper, we conduct an experimental study to evaluate the relations between the LLM errors when counting letters with 1) the frequency of the word and its components in the training dataset and 2) the complexity of the counting operation. We present a comprehensive analysis of the errors of LLMs when counting letter occurrences by evaluating a representative group of models over a large number of words. The results show a number of consistent trends in the models evaluated: 1) models are capable of recognizing the letters but not counting them; 2) the frequency of the word and tokens in the word does not have a significant impact on the LLM errors; 3) there is a positive correlation of letter frequency with errors, more frequent letters tend to have more counting errors, 4) the errors show a strong correlation with the number of letters or tokens in a word and 5) the strongest correlation occurs with the number of letters with counts larger than one, with most models being unable to correctly count words in which letters appear more than twice.

Related papers

• Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models [54.26923012617675]
  We unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs) We find that fine-tuning existing text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy. We leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:59:02Z)
• On Memorization of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [70.94164038947078]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve good performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet could also make basic reasoning mistakes. One hypothesis is that the increasingly high and nearly saturated performance could be due to the memorization of similar problems. We show that fine-tuning leads to heavy memorization, but it also consistently improves generalization performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T15:31:54Z)
• Language Models Encode Numbers Using Digit Representations in Base 10 [12.913172023910203]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) make errors when handling simple numerical problems. LLMs internally represent numbers with individual circular representations per-digit in base 10. This digit-wise representation sheds light on the error patterns of models on tasks involving numerical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T17:00:15Z)
• MLissard: Multilingual Long and Simple Sequential Reasoning Benchmarks [10.39816548971042]
  Language models are now capable of solving tasks that require dealing with long sequences consisting of hundreds of thousands of tokens. However, they often fail on tasks that require repetitive use of simple rules, even on sequences that are much shorter than those seen during training. We introduce MLissard, a benchmark designed to evaluate models' abilities to process and generate texts of varied lengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T21:59:31Z)
• From Tokens to Words: On the Inner Lexicon of LLMs [7.148628740938674]
  Natural language is composed of words, but modern LLMs process sub-words as input. We present evidence that LLMs engage in an intrinsic detokenization process, where sub-word sequences are combined into coherent word representations. Our findings suggest that LLMs maintain a latent vocabulary beyond the tokenizer's scope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T09:53:35Z)
• Can LLMs perform structured graph reasoning? [4.676784872259775]
  Pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated various reasoning capabilities through language-based prompts alone. We design various graph reasoning tasks as a proxy to semi-structured tasks in this paper. We benchmark 5 different instruct-finetuned LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Claude-2, Llama-2 and Palm-2) on the aforementioned tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T09:45:33Z)
• Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Prompting [87.30837365008931]
  Large language models (LLMs) equipped with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are able to make accurate incremental predictions even on unscalable tasks. This study examines the impact of LLMs' step-by-step predictions on gender bias in unscalable tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T06:50:10Z)
• Pre-training LLMs using human-like development data corpus [3.5757761767474876]
  We pre-train and evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to learn contextual word representations using roughly the same number of tokens as seen by children. We provide a strong set of baselines; with different architectures, evaluation of changes in performance across epochs, and reported pre-training metrics for the strict small and strict tracks of the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T13:13:23Z)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)
• CompoundPiece: Evaluating and Improving Decompounding Performance of Language Models [77.45934004406283]
  We systematically study decompounding, the task of splitting compound words into their constituents. We introduce a dataset of 255k compound and non-compound words across 56 diverse languages obtained from Wiktionary. We introduce a novel methodology to train dedicated models for decompounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:32:27Z)
• 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)

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.