Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2201.11903v1

This paper delves into the ability of language models to generate a coherent chain of thought, which mimics the reasoning process that a person might have when responding to a question. While scaling up language model size has improved performance on various NLP tasks, even the largest models currently struggle with certain reasoning tasks such as math word problems, symbolic manipulation, and commonsense reasoning. The experiments conducted in this study show that inducing a chain of thought via prompting can enable sufficiently large language models to perform better on reasoning tasks that otherwise have flat scaling curves. The emergence of chain of thought reasoning as a consequence of model scale has been a prevailing theme in these experiments. For six reasoning tasks where standard prompting has a flat scaling curve, chain of thought prompting leads to dramatically increasing scaling curves for sufficiently large language models. This observation underscores that standard prompting only provides a lower bound on the capabilities of large language models in principle and raises questions about how much more we can expect the reasoning ability to improve with further increases in model scale. This paper falls under general prompting approaches; however, unlike most techniques that focus on optimizing inputs/prompts for given tasks or improving interpretability using natural language explanations (NLEs), this study leverages prompting by guiding the model to produce self-assisting outputs. Future work could explore how to induce reasoning at smaller model scales and other prompting methods that might expand the range of tasks that language models can solve. The dependence on chain of thought prompting and sufficiently large models are both key components and major limitations. Although manually augmenting exemplars with chains of thought is minimal in the few-shot setting, annotation costs could be prohibitive for fine-tuning. Moreover, although chain of thought prompting improves the scaling curve, it does not necessarily solve all tasks compared with human accuracy. The paper provides valuable insights into the limitations and possibilities of large language models in performing reasoning tasks.

• - Language models struggle with certain reasoning tasks such as math word problems, symbolic manipulation, and commonsense reasoning.
• - Inducing a chain of thought via prompting can enable sufficiently large language models to perform better on reasoning tasks that otherwise have flat scaling curves.
• - Chain of thought prompting leads to dramatically increasing scaling curves for sufficiently large language models in six reasoning tasks where standard prompting has a flat scaling curve.
• - Standard prompting only provides a lower bound on the capabilities of large language models in principle.
• - This study leverages prompting by guiding the model to produce self-assisting outputs, unlike most techniques that focus on optimizing inputs/prompts for given tasks or improving interpretability using natural language explanations (NLEs).
• - Future work could explore how to induce reasoning at smaller model scales and other prompting methods that might expand the range of tasks that language models can solve.
• - The dependence on chain of thought prompting and sufficiently large models are both key components and major limitations.
• - Although manually augmenting exemplars with chains of thought is minimal in the few-shot setting, annotation costs could be prohibitive for fine-tuning.
• - Chain of thought prompting improves the scaling curve but does not necessarily solve all tasks compared with human accuracy.

Language models sometimes have trouble with certain types of thinking tasks, like math problems or common sense reasoning. But if we give them prompts to follow, they can do better on these kinds of tasks. This works especially well for big language models. We can guide the model to produce helpful outputs that it can use to solve problems. However, this method only works well for big models and doesn't always make them as good as humans at solving problems. Definitions- Language models: computer programs that can understand and generate human language - Reasoning tasks: problems that require thinking and problem-solving skills - Scaling curves: how much a model's performance improves as it gets bigger - Prompting: giving the model specific instructions or cues to follow - Exemplars: examples used to train a model

Exploring the Ability of Language Models to Generate Coherent Chains of Thought

Natural language processing (NLP) has made great strides in recent years, with large language models achieving impressive performance on various tasks. However, even the largest models still struggle with certain reasoning tasks such as math word problems, symbolic manipulation, and commonsense reasoning. In a new research paper published by researchers at Stanford University and Google Brain, they explore how inducing a chain of thought via prompting can enable sufficiently large language models to perform better on these types of reasoning tasks.

Background

In NLP research, scaling up model size has been shown to improve performance on various tasks. This is especially true for transformer-based architectures like BERT and GPT-3 which have achieved state-of-the-art results on many NLP benchmarks. However, when it comes to more complex reasoning tasks that require understanding abstract concepts or manipulating symbols, standard prompting techniques have not been able to achieve significant improvements in performance beyond a certain point.

The Study

To address this issue, the researchers proposed an approach called “chain of thought” prompting which guides the model through a sequence of steps that mimic the way humans reason about problems. The idea is that by providing additional context and structure for each step in the process, the model can better understand what is expected from it and thus produce more accurate results. To test their hypothesis, they conducted experiments using six different reasoning tasks: math word problems; symbolic manipulation; logical inference; temporal ordering; causal inference; and commonsense reasoning. For each task they compared standard prompting techniques with chain of thought prompting for both small and large language models (up to 8 billion parameters).

Results

The results showed that while standard prompting had flat scaling curves across all six tasks regardless of model size (i.e., no improvement beyond a certain point), chain of thought prompting led to dramatically increasing scaling curves for sufficiently large language models—indicating that larger models could potentially solve these types of problems much better than smaller ones if given appropriate guidance during training/inference time. This observation underscores that standard prompts only provide a lower bound on what is possible in principle with larger language models and raises questions about how much further we can expect them to improve with further increases in scale/parameters count .

Limitations & Future Work

Although manually augmenting exemplars with chains of thought is minimal in the few-shot setting , annotation costs could be prohibitive for fine-tuning . Moreover , although chain -of -thought prompting improves scaling curves , it does not necessarily solve all tasks compared with human accuracy . Additionally , future work should explore how to induce similar levels of reasoning at smaller model scales as well as other promising methods such as natural language explanations (NLEs) or interpretability techniques which might expand our understanding about what these powerful tools are capable off .

Conclusion This study provides valuable insights into both the limitations and possibilities associated with using large language models for performing complex reasoning tasks . While current approaches are limited by their dependence on sufficient scale /parameter counts as well as manual augmentation efforts , there remains potential for further progress if we continue exploring novel ways to prompt these systems towards producing self - assisting outputs .