How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning?

arXiv · PDF · Open in the Atlas

Code that ran

We lifted 3 functions out of this paper's own repositories and ran 3 of them in a sandbox. "Ran" means the function executed on a synthesized input and returned a value. It is not a reproduction of the paper's results.

Repositories linked to this paper

• stevenzhb/cot_causal_analysis — marked official in Papers with Code; named in the paper

Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.

Abstract

Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it does not always improve task performance or accurately represent reasoning processes, leaving unresolved questions about its usage. In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans, using causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs. Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from the ideal causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors (inconsistent reasoning and answers). We also examine various factors influencing the causal structure, finding that in-context learning with examples strengthens it, while post-training techniques like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning on human feedback weaken it. To our surprise, the causal structure cannot be strengthened by enlarging the model size only, urging research on new techniques. We hope that this preliminary study will shed light on understanding and improving the reasoning process in LLM.

For agents

The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:

get_harvested_code_for_paper("2402.16048")
get_code_for_paper("2402.16048")
have("2402.16048")

Connect an agent — have() is free.