REVIEW 5 cited by
LLM Reasoners: New Evaluation, Library, and Analysis of Step-by-Step Reasoning with Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Generating accurate step-by-step reasoning is essential for Large Language Models (LLMs) to address complex problems and enhance robustness and interpretability. Despite the flux of research on developing advanced reasoning approaches, systematically analyzing the diverse LLMs and reasoning strategies in generating reasoning chains remains a significant challenge. The difficulties stem from the lack of two key elements: (1) an automatic method for evaluating the generated reasoning chains on different tasks, and (2) a unified formalism and implementation of the diverse reasoning approaches for systematic comparison. This paper aims to close the gap: (1) We introduce AutoRace for fully automated reasoning chain evaluation. Existing metrics rely on expensive human annotations or pre-defined LLM prompts not adaptable to different tasks. In contrast, AutoRace automatically creates detailed evaluation criteria tailored for each task, and uses GPT-4 for accurate evaluation following the criteria. (2) We develop LLM Reasoners, a library for standardized modular implementation of existing and new reasoning algorithms, under a unified formulation of the search, reward, and world model components. With the new evaluation and library, (3) we conduct extensive study of different reasoning approaches (e.g., CoT, ToT, RAP). The analysis reveals interesting findings about different factors contributing to reasoning, including the reward-guidance, breadth-vs-depth in search, world model, and prompt formats, etc.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
BMMR: A Large-Scale Bilingual Multimodal Multi-Discipline Reasoning Dataset
BMMR provides a 110k-question bilingual, multimodal, college-level dataset across 300 subjects where state-of-the-art models score at most about 50%.
-
Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?
Reasoning language models are systematically overconfident, deeper reasoning makes them more overconfident, and a two-stage introspective prompting method improves calibration for some models.
-
One Example Shown, Many Concepts Known! Counterexample-Driven Conceptual Reasoning in Mathematical LLMs
LLMs score poorly on CounterMATH, a new counterexample-based university math benchmark, and a 1,025-sample counterexample fine-tune yields small and partly inconsistent gains.
-
TreeThink: A Modular Tree Search Library for Mathematical Reasoning with LLMs
TreeThink provides a modular, asynchronous tree-search library for neural theorem proving with unified REPL clients for Lean, Rocq, and Isabelle and up to 6.3× wall-clock speedup.
-
CodeGrad: Integrating Multi-Step Verification with Gradient-Based LLM Refinement
CodeGrad improves code generation by routing structured critic feedback into up to two refinement rounds, but its formal-verification claim rests on AI-written proofs judged by the AI.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.