Loading…

How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?

Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the und...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2024-12
Main Authors: Bao, Guangsheng, Zhang, Hongbo, Wang, Cunxiang, Yang, Linyi, Zhang, Yue
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator Bao, Guangsheng
Zhang, Hongbo
Wang, Cunxiang
Yang, Linyi
Zhang, Yue
description Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans, using causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs. Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from the ideal causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors (inconsistent reasoning and answers). We also examine various factors influencing the causal structure, finding that in-context learning with examples strengthens it, while post-training techniques like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on human feedback weaken it. To our surprise, the causal structure cannot be strengthened by enlarging the model size only, urging research on new techniques. We hope that this preliminary study will shed light on understanding and improving the reasoning process in LLM.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2932315554</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2932315554</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_29323155543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0MjY21LUwMTLiYOAtLs4yMDAwMjM3MjU15mQw8sgvV_DJzE7NqVRwyVfw8fEtVijPLMlQcM4PUfDNzM1MVvAozU3MUwhKTSzOz8vMS7fnYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMym6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8Vn5pUV5QKl4I0tjI2NDU1NTE2PiVAEAGS4yNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2932315554</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Bao, Guangsheng ; Zhang, Hongbo ; Wang, Cunxiang ; Yang, Linyi ; Zhang, Yue</creator><creatorcontrib>Bao, Guangsheng ; Zhang, Hongbo ; Wang, Cunxiang ; Yang, Linyi ; Zhang, Yue</creatorcontrib><description>Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans, using causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs. Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from the ideal causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors (inconsistent reasoning and answers). We also examine various factors influencing the causal structure, finding that in-context learning with examples strengthens it, while post-training techniques like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on human feedback weaken it. To our surprise, the causal structure cannot be strengthened by enlarging the model size only, urging research on new techniques. We hope that this preliminary study will shed light on understanding and improving the reasoning process in LLM.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Large language models ; Reasoning</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2024-12</ispartof><rights>2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2932315554?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>776,780,25731,36989,44566</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bao, Guangsheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Hongbo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Cunxiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Linyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yue</creatorcontrib><title>How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans, using causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs. Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from the ideal causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors (inconsistent reasoning and answers). We also examine various factors influencing the causal structure, finding that in-context learning with examples strengthens it, while post-training techniques like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on human feedback weaken it. To our surprise, the causal structure cannot be strengthened by enlarging the model size only, urging research on new techniques. We hope that this preliminary study will shed light on understanding and improving the reasoning process in LLM.</description><subject>Large language models</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0MjY21LUwMTLiYOAtLs4yMDAwMjM3MjU15mQw8sgvV_DJzE7NqVRwyVfw8fEtVijPLMlQcM4PUfDNzM1MVvAozU3MUwhKTSzOz8vMS7fnYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMym6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8Vn5pUV5QKl4I0tjI2NDU1NTE2PiVAEAGS4yNw</recordid><startdate>20241212</startdate><enddate>20241212</enddate><creator>Bao, Guangsheng</creator><creator>Zhang, Hongbo</creator><creator>Wang, Cunxiang</creator><creator>Yang, Linyi</creator><creator>Zhang, Yue</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241212</creationdate><title>How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?</title><author>Bao, Guangsheng ; Zhang, Hongbo ; Wang, Cunxiang ; Yang, Linyi ; Zhang, Yue</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_29323155543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Large language models</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bao, Guangsheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Hongbo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Cunxiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Linyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yue</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bao, Guangsheng</au><au>Zhang, Hongbo</au><au>Wang, Cunxiang</au><au>Yang, Linyi</au><au>Zhang, Yue</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2024-12-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans, using causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs. Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from the ideal causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors (inconsistent reasoning and answers). We also examine various factors influencing the causal structure, finding that in-context learning with examples strengthens it, while post-training techniques like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on human feedback weaken it. To our surprise, the causal structure cannot be strengthened by enlarging the model size only, urging research on new techniques. We hope that this preliminary study will shed light on understanding and improving the reasoning process in LLM.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2024-12
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2932315554
source Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Large language models
Reasoning
title How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T13%3A41%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=How%20Likely%20Do%20LLMs%20with%20CoT%20Mimic%20Human%20Reasoning?&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Bao,%20Guangsheng&rft.date=2024-12-12&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2932315554%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_29323155543%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2932315554&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true