Certified Deductive Reasoning with Language Models
Language models often achieve higher accuracy when reasoning step-by-step in complex tasks. However, even when arriving at a correct final answer, their rationales are often logically unsound or inconsistent. This is a major issue when reliable reasoning traces are needed, such when fine-tuning on model-generated reasoning for self-improvement. To tackle these issues, we introduce a class of tools for language models called \emph{guides}, that use state and incremental constraints to guide generation. A guide can be invoked by the model to constrain its own generation to a set of valid statements given by the tool. In turn, the model's choices can change the guide's state. We show how a general system for logical reasoning can be used as a guide, which we call \textsc{LogicGuide}. Given a reasoning problem in natural language, a model can formalize its assumptions for \textsc{LogicGuide} and guarantee that its step-by-step reasoning is sound. In experiments on PrOntoQA, ProofWriter and Syllogism Validity datasets, \textsc{LogicGuide} significantly improves the performance of GPT-3, GPT-3.5 Turbo and LLaMA (accuracy gains up to 35\%), while drastically reducing \emph{content effects} -- the interference between unwanted prior assumptions and reasoning, which humans and language models suffer from. We then explore bootstrapping GPT-3.5 Turbo and LLaMA using their own reasoning traces. We find that LogicGuide is critical: by training only on certified self-generated reasoning, models can self-improve, avoiding learning from their own hallucinations. Moreover, bootstrapped models enjoy significant boosts on ReClor, a challenging real-world reasoning dataset, even when not relying on formalization at inference time.
Code (1)
Tasks
Logical ReasoningvalidMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
MentalSeek-Dx: Towards Progressive Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning for Real-world Psychiatric Diagnosis
Mental health disorders represent a burgeoning global public health challenge. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in psychiatric assessment, their clinical utility is severely constrained by b…
Reinforcement LearningDeductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly benefit from Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting in performing various reasoning tasks. While CoT allows models to produce more comprehensive reasoning processes, its emphasis on i…
Logical ReasoningInductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reasoning Abilities of LLMs
Reasoning encompasses two typical types: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Despite extensive research into the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), most studies have failed to rigorously dif…
counterfactualCounterfactual ReasoningSR-FoT: A Syllogistic-Reasoning Framework of Thought for Large Language Models Tackling Knowledge-based Reasoning Tasks
Deductive reasoning is a crucial logical capability that assists us in solving complex problems based on existing knowledge. Although augmented by Chain-of-Thought prompts, Large Language Models (LLMs) might not follow t…
Can Pretrained Language Models (Yet) Reason Deductively?
Acquiring factual knowledge with Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) has attracted increasing attention, showing promising performance in many knowledge-intensive tasks. Their good performance has led the community to beli…