Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives

AI-generated keywords: Self-Contrast Large Language Models Reflection Capacity Reflective Abilities Diverse Solving Perspectives

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • 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.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Linjuan Wu, Qiuying Peng, Jun Wang, Yueting Zhuang, Weiming Lu

Accepted by ACL 2024 Main

Abstract: The reflection capacity of Large Language Model (LLM) has garnered extensive attention. A post-hoc prompting strategy, e.g., reflexion and self-refine, refines LLM's response based on self-evaluated or external feedback. However, recent research indicates without external feedback, LLM's intrinsic reflection is unstable. Our investigation unveils that the key bottleneck is the quality of the self-evaluated feedback. We find LLMs often exhibit overconfidence or high randomness when self-evaluate, offering stubborn or inconsistent feedback, which causes poor reflection. To remedy this, we advocate Self-Contrast: It adaptively explores diverse solving perspectives tailored to the request, contrasts the differences, and summarizes these discrepancies into a checklist which could be used to re-examine and eliminate discrepancies. Our method endows LLM with diverse perspectives to alleviate stubborn biases. Moreover, their discrepancies indicate potential errors or inherent uncertainties that LLM often overlooks. Reflecting upon these can catalyze more accurate and stable reflection. Experiments conducted on a series of reasoning and translation tasks with different LLMs serve to underscore the effectiveness and generality of our strategy.

Submitted to arXiv on 04 Jan. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

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

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

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.
Created on 18 Nov. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.