Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying
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 Federico Castagna, Isabel Sassoon, and Simon Parsons address the challenge faced by Large Language Models (LLMs) in logical and mathematical reasoning tasks despite advancements in AI research.
- LLMs excel at identifying data patterns but struggle with generalizing and solving reasoning problems beyond their training data.
- The authors propose leveraging critical questions from argumentation theory, specifically drawing on Toulmin's model of argumentation, to enhance LLMs' ability to identify logical errors and improve performance.
- Ensuring that conclusions drawn by LLMs are valid based on accepted premises is emphasized to mirror sound argumentative procedures.
- The proposed approach involves guiding models through a reasoning pipeline to assess and correct logical mistakes before generating responses to user prompts.
- The study demonstrates improved performance compared to baseline models and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementations through the integration of critical questioning techniques.
- Extensive evaluation across various LLMs using MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks validates the effectiveness of integrating critical questioning techniques into the reasoning process of LLMs.
- This study presents a promising strategy for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of advanced language models in AI research.
Authors: Federico Castagna, Isabel Sassoon, Simon Parsons
Abstract: Studies have underscored how, regardless of the recent breakthrough and swift advances in AI research, even state-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. The results seem to suggest that LLMs still work as (highly advanced) data pattern identifiers, scoring poorly when attempting to generalise and solve reasoning problems the models have never previously seen or that are not close to samples presented in their training data. To address this compelling concern, this paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By probing the rationale behind the models' reasoning process, the LLM can assess whether some logical mistake is occurring and correct it before providing the final reply to the user prompt. The underlying idea is drawn from the gold standard of any valid argumentative procedure: the conclusion is valid if it is entailed by accepted premises. Or, to paraphrase such Aristotelian principle in a real-world approximation, characterised by incomplete information and presumptive logic, the conclusion is valid if not proved otherwise. This approach successfully steers the models' output through a reasoning pipeline, resulting in better performance against the baseline and its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation. To this end, an extensive evaluation of the proposed approach on the MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks across a range of LLMs is provided.
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.
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.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook 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.