No Need for Explanations: LLMs can implicitly learn from mistakes in-context

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08550v2
• Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 18:09:44 GMT
• Title: No Need for Explanations: LLMs can implicitly learn from mistakes in-context
• Authors: Lisa Alazraki, Maximilian Mozes, Jon Ander Campos, Tan Yi-Chern, Marek Rei, Max Bartolo,
• Abstract summary: We study why Large Language Models learn from mistakes more effectively without explicit corrective rationales.<n>We find evidence that, while incorrect answers are more beneficial for LLM learning, explicit corrective rationales over-constrain the model.
• Score: 14.508050809497847
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Showing incorrect answers to Large Language Models (LLMs) is a popular strategy to improve their performance in reasoning-intensive tasks. It is widely assumed that, in order to be helpful, the incorrect answers must be accompanied by comprehensive rationales, explicitly detailing where the mistakes are and how to correct them. However, in this work we present a counterintuitive finding: we observe that LLMs perform better in math reasoning tasks when these rationales are eliminated from the context and models are left to infer on their own what makes an incorrect answer flawed. This approach also substantially outperforms chain-of-thought prompting in our evaluations. These results are consistent across LLMs of different sizes and varying reasoning abilities. To gain an understanding of why LLMs learn from mistakes more effectively without explicit corrective rationales, we perform a thorough analysis, investigating changes in context length and answer diversity between different prompting strategies, and their effect on performance. We also examine evidence of overfitting to the in-context rationales when these are provided, and study the extent to which LLMs are able to autonomously infer high-quality corrective rationales given only incorrect answers as input. We find evidence that, while incorrect answers are more beneficial for LLM learning than additional diverse correct answers, explicit corrective rationales over-constrain the model, thus limiting those benefits.

Related papers

• WakenLLM: Evaluating Reasoning Potential and Stability in LLMs via Fine-Grained Benchmarking [14.76224690767612]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently output the label Unknown in reasoning tasks.<n>We introduce WakenLLM, a framework that quantifies the portion of Unknown output attributable to model incapacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:21:48Z)
• Answer-Centric or Reasoning-Driven? Uncovering the Latent Memory Anchor in LLMs [28.556628696390767]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive reasoning capabilities.<n>Evidence suggests much of their success stems from memorized answer-reasoning patterns rather than genuine inference.<n>We propose a five-level answer-visibility prompt framework that systematically manipulates answer cues and probes model behavior through indirect, behavioral analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T08:15:45Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• Do Large Language Models Truly Grasp Mathematics? An Empirical Exploration From Cognitive Psychology [13.964263002704582]
  We show that, even with the use of Chains of Thought prompts, mainstream LLMs have a high error rate when solving modified CRT problems. Specifically, the average accuracy rate dropped by up to 50% compared to the original questions. This finding challenges the belief that LLMs have genuine mathematical reasoning abilities comparable to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T05:01:56Z)
• Not All LLM Reasoners Are Created Equal [58.236453890457476]
  We study the depth of grade-school math problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. We evaluate their performance on pairs of existing math word problems together.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T17:01:10Z)
• Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have generated significant attention since their inception, finding applications across various academic and industrial domains.<n>LLMs often suffer from the "hallucination problem", where outputs, though grammatically and logically coherent, lack factual accuracy or are entirely fabricated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T14:34:32Z)
• When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation [66.01754585188739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T04:57:19Z)
• Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs [52.42505579545893]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought explanations alongside answers. We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:22:56Z)
• LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location [0.9017736137562115]
  Poor self-correction performance stems from LLMs' inability to find logical mistakes, rather than their ability to correct a known mistake. We benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on their mistake-finding ability and demonstrate that they generally struggle with the task. We show that it is possible to obtain mistake location information without ground truth labels or in-domain training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T20:12:38Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• Learning From Mistakes Makes LLM Better Reasoner [106.48571828587728]
  Large language models (LLMs) recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities on solving math problems. This work explores whether LLMs can LEarn from MistAkes (LEMA), akin to the human learning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T17:52:22Z)
• Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong [35.64962031447787]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Our experiments with 80 crowdworkers compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:09:58Z)
• GPT-4 Doesn't Know It's Wrong: An Analysis of Iterative Prompting for Reasoning Problems [16.284360949127723]
  We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT4 in solving graph coloring instances or verifying the correctness of candidate colorings. We show that the observed increase in effectiveness is largely due to the correct solution being fortuitously present in the top-k completions of the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T00:56:37Z)
• SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning [55.76083560152823]
  SelfCheck is a general-purpose zero-shot verification schema for recognizing errors in step-by-step reasoning. We test SelfCheck on three datasets (GSM8K, MathQA, and MATH) and find that it successfully recognizes errors and, in turn, increases final answer accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T10:31:36Z)
• 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.