CoT提示主要提升数学与符号推理任务表现,其他任务收益有限。
To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning
- 通过元分析和实测验证CoT在数学逻辑任务中显著提效
- 在MMLU上无CoT时准确率几乎相同,除非涉及等号运算
- 适合需要符号推理的场景,可节省推理成本
链式思维(CoT)提示是激发大语言模型推理能力的主流方法。为探究其适用范围,我们对100余篇使用CoT的论文进行了定量元分析,并对14个模型在20个数据集上的表现进行了实测。结果表明,CoT在数学与逻辑类任务中带来显著性能提升,而在其他任务中收益较小。在MMLU数据集上,若问题或模型输出不含等号,则直接生成答案与使用CoT的准确率几乎一致。进一步分析显示,CoT的优势主要来自对符号执行的改进,但其表现仍不及专用符号求解器。研究建议应有选择性地使用CoT以降低推理开销,并推动超越提示式CoT的新范式,以更好利用中间计算过程。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Chain-of-thought (CoT) via prompting is the de facto method for eliciting reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). But for what kinds of tasks is this extra ``thinking'' really helpful? To analyze this, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis covering over 100 papers using CoT and ran our own evaluations of 20 datasets across 14 models. Our results show that CoT gives strong performance benefits primarily on tasks involving math or logic, with much smaller gains on other types of tasks. On MMLU, directly generating the answer without CoT leads to almost identical accuracy as CoT unless the question or model's response contains an equals sign, indicating symbolic operations and reasoning. Following this finding, we analyze the behavior of CoT on these problems by separating planning and execution and comparing against tool-augmented LLMs. Much of CoT's gain comes from improving symbolic execution, but it underperforms relative to using a symbolic solver. Our results indicate that CoT can be applied selectively, maintaining performance while saving inference costs. Furthermore, they suggest a need to move beyond prompt-based CoT to new paradigms that better leverage intermediate computation across the whole range of LLM applications.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。