REVIEW 6 cited by
Alice in Wonderland: Simple Tasks Showing Complete Reasoning Breakdown in State-Of-the-Art 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
Large Language Models (LLMs) are often described as instances of foundation models that possess strong generalization obeying scaling laws, and therefore transfer robustly across various conditions in few- or zero-shot manner. Such claims rely on standardized benchmarks that suppose to measure generalization and reasoning, where state-of-the-art (SOTA) models score high. We demonstrate here a dramatic breakdown of generalization and basic reasoning of all SOTA models claiming strong function, including large scale advanced models like GPT-4 or Claude 3 Opus, using a simple, short common sense math problem formulated in concise natural language, easily solvable by humans (AIW problem). The breakdown is dramatic as it manifests on a simple problem in both low average performance and strong performance fluctuations on natural variations in problem template that do not change either problem structure or its difficulty at all. By testing models on further control problems with similar form, we rule out that breakdown might be rooted in minor low-level issues like natural language or numbers parsing. We also observe strong overconfidence in the wrong solutions, expressed in form of plausible sounding explanation-like confabulations. Various standard interventions in an attempt to get the right solution, like chain-of-thought prompting, or urging the models to reconsider the wrong solutions again by multi step re-evaluation, fail. We use these observations to stimulate re-assessment of the capabilities of current generation of LLMs as claimed by standardized benchmarks. Such re-assessment also requires common action to create standardized benchmarks that would allow proper detection of such deficits in generalization and reasoning that obviously remain undiscovered by current state-of-the-art evaluation procedures, where SOTA LLMs manage to score high. Code: https://github.com/LAION-AI/AIW
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Robust Reasoning Benchmark
The Robust Reasoning Benchmark shows frontier LLMs are mostly resilient to textual perturbations on AIME problems while open-weight models suffer up to 54% accuracy drops and exhibit accuracy decay on later problems d...
-
Self-Correction Bench: Uncovering and Addressing the Self-Correction Blind Spot in Large Language Models
Non-reasoning LLMs fail to correct their own errors (64.5% blind spot) while correcting identical external errors, and appending 'Wait' cuts the gap by 89.3%.
-
Meanings are like Onions: a Layered Approach to Metaphor Processing
Metaphor meaning is modeled as an onion with an outer context layer, a middle conceptual blending layer, and an inner pragmatic intention layer.
-
Beyond Statistical Learning: Exact Learning Is Essential for General Intelligence
Reliable deductive reasoning in AI requires replacing average-case statistical objectives with the exact learning criterion of universal correctness, a thesis supported by sample-complexity lower bounds showing statis...
-
Reasoning Can Hurt the Inductive Abilities of Large Language Models
Chain-of-thought reasoning can hurt LLMs' ability to infer hidden rules from gameplay transcripts, and structured interventions recover the lost accuracy.
-
Reliable Conversational Agents under ASP Control that Understand Natural Language
A neuro-symbolic conversational framework uses LLMs purely as semantic parsers and ASP for reasoning, with only preliminary evidence supporting the claimed reliability.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.