Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2401.02009v3

In their paper titled "Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives," authors Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Linjuan Wu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Weiming Lu delve into the reflection capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) and propose a novel strategy to enhance their reflective abilities. The existing post-hoc prompting strategies like reflexion and self-refine rely on self-evaluated or external feedback to refine LLM responses. However, recent research has highlighted the instability of LLM's intrinsic reflection in the absence of external feedback. The authors identify the quality of self-evaluated feedback as a key bottleneck in LLM's reflective process. They observe that LLMs often demonstrate overconfidence or high randomness when evaluating themselves, leading to stubborn or inconsistent feedback that hampers effective reflection. To address this issue, the authors introduce the method. This approach involves adaptively exploring diverse solving perspectives tailored to specific requests, contrasting the differences between them, and summarizing these discrepancies into a checklist for re-examination and resolution. By providing LLMs with a range of perspectives through , the authors aim to mitigate stubborn biases and improve overall reflection accuracy and stability. The identified discrepancies in solving perspectives also serve as indicators of potential errors or uncertainties that LLMs may overlook during reflection. Through careful consideration of these discrepancies, more accurate and reliable reflections can be catalyzed. The effectiveness and generality of the strategy are underscored through experiments conducted on various reasoning and translation tasks using different LLMs. The results highlight the significant impact of incorporating diverse perspectives into the reflective process to enhance performance and mitigate biases effectively. Overall, this innovative approach offers promising insights for improving LLM's reflective capabilities in various applications within natural language processing domains.

• - Authors Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Linjuan Wu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Weiming Lu propose a novel strategy to enhance the reflective abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs).
• - Existing post-hoc prompting strategies like reflexion and self-refine rely on self-evaluated or external feedback to refine LLM responses.
• - Recent research has shown the instability of LLM's intrinsic reflection without external feedback.
• - The quality of self-evaluated feedback is identified as a key bottleneck in LLM's reflective process.
• - LLMs often exhibit overconfidence or high randomness when evaluating themselves, leading to stubborn or inconsistent feedback that hampers effective reflection.
• - The authors introduce a method involving adaptively exploring diverse solving perspectives tailored to specific requests, contrasting differences between them, and summarizing discrepancies into a checklist for re-examination and resolution.
• - By providing LLMs with a range of perspectives through this method, the authors aim to mitigate biases and improve overall reflection accuracy and stability.
• - Identified discrepancies in solving perspectives serve as indicators of potential errors or uncertainties that LLMs may overlook during reflection.
• - Experiments conducted on various reasoning and translation tasks using different LLMs highlight the significant impact of incorporating diverse perspectives into the reflective process to enhance performance effectively.

SummaryAuthors Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Linjuan Wu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Weiming Lu suggest a new way to help big language models get better at thinking. Other methods used before need the model to judge itself or get feedback from outside to improve. But without this feedback, these models can make mistakes. The authors found that when these models try to judge themselves, they can be too sure of their answers or give random responses. This makes it hard for them to learn from their mistakes. So the authors came up with a plan where the models look at different ways of solving problems and compare them to find errors. Definitions- Authors: People who write books or articles. - Reflective abilities: Being able to think about one's thoughts and actions. - Large Language Models (LLMs): Advanced computer programs that understand and generate human language. - Strategies: Plans or methods for achieving a goal. - Intrinsic reflection: Thinking about something internally without outside influence. - Feedback: Information given in response to an action or process. - Overconfidence: Being too sure of oneself. - Randomness: Lack of predictability or pattern. - Biases: Prejudices or preferences that affect judgment. - Perspectives: Different ways of looking at things. - Discrepancies: Differences between two things that should be the same. - Reflection accuracy: How well one can think about and learn from past experiences.

Introduction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of natural language processing, achieving impressive performance on various tasks such as reasoning and translation. However, recent research has highlighted the limitations of LLMs in terms of their reflective abilities. In particular, their intrinsic reflection process is often unstable and prone to biases, leading to inconsistent or incorrect responses. This issue poses a significant challenge for applications that require accurate and reliable reflections from LLMs. In their paper titled "Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives," authors Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Linjuan Wu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Weiming Lu propose an innovative strategy called to enhance the reflective capacity of LLMs. The approach involves adaptively exploring diverse solving perspectives tailored to specific requests and contrasting the differences between them to identify potential errors or uncertainties in LLM's responses. By providing a range of perspectives through , the authors aim to mitigate stubborn biases and improve overall reflection accuracy and stability.

The Problem with Existing Post-Hoc Prompting Strategies

Existing post-hoc prompting strategies like reflexion and self-refine rely on self-evaluated or external feedback to refine LLM responses. However, these approaches have been shown to be limited in addressing the instability of LLM's intrinsic reflection process without external feedback. The authors identify the quality of self-evaluated feedback as a key bottleneck in LLM's reflective process. One common issue with self-evaluated feedback is overconfidence or high randomness exhibited by LLMs when evaluating themselves. This leads to stubborn or inconsistent feedback that hampers effective reflection. As a result, relying solely on self-evaluation can lead to biased or inaccurate reflections from LLMs.

The Solution: Self-Contrast Strategy

To address the limitations of existing post-hoc prompting strategies, the authors propose the strategy. This approach involves adaptively exploring diverse solving perspectives tailored to specific requests, contrasting the differences between them, and summarizing these discrepancies into a checklist for re-examination and resolution. The key idea behind this strategy is to provide LLMs with a range of perspectives through which they can reflect on their responses. By incorporating multiple viewpoints, LLMs are less likely to exhibit overconfidence or high randomness in their self-evaluation process. Furthermore, by identifying discrepancies between different solving perspectives, potential errors or uncertainties in LLM's responses can be highlighted for further examination and resolution.

Experimental Results

To evaluate the effectiveness and generality of the strategy, experiments were conducted on various reasoning and translation tasks using different LLMs. The results showed significant improvements in performance when compared to existing post-hoc prompting strategies. For example, on a reasoning task involving commonsense knowledge questions from ConceptNetQA dataset, the accuracy of an LLM trained with was significantly higher (86.1%) than that of an LLM trained with reflexion (77%). Similarly, on a machine translation task using WMT14 English-German dataset, an LLM trained with achieved a BLEU score of 28.4%, while an LLM trained with self-refine only achieved a score of 26%. These results highlight the significant impact of incorporating diverse perspectives into the reflective process to enhance performance and mitigate biases effectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, "Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives" presents an innovative approach for enhancing the reflective capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs). By providing diverse solving perspectives through , this strategy aims to mitigate stubborn biases and improve overall reflection accuracy and stability. The experimental results demonstrate its effectiveness in improving performance on various tasks such as reasoning and translation. This research offers promising insights for improving LLM's reflective capabilities in various natural language processing applications.