测试大模型多轮推理能力,发现其在复杂逻辑任务上表现不佳。
WILT: A Multi-Turn, Memorization-Robust Inductive Logic Benchmark for LLMs
- 设计多轮交互式逻辑测试,防止模型依赖记忆
- 顶尖模型准确率仅28%,暴露推理短板
- 适合评估大模型真实推理能力,尤其对对话系统研究者
尽管大语言模型在多个领域表现出色,但在需要多轮收集证据并推导结论的推理任务中仍面临重大挑战。这类问题严重影响了基于多轮交互的LLM聊天界面效果。例如,客服机器人需通过多轮对话获取用户信息以解决问题。然而,现有基准大多采用精心设计的单轮测试,难以区分记忆与真正推理。为此,我们提出Wiston归纳逻辑测试(WILT),灵感来自经典的2-4-6任务,要求模型通过多轮提出测试案例(如(2,4,6))来推断隐藏的布尔函数(如x < y < z)。每轮从零开始,仅提供初始指令,避免模型依赖预存答案。实验表明,模型在该任务上表现普遍薄弱:部分擅长缩小假设空间,部分更善于从结果推导规律,但最优模型准确率仅为28%,揭示了大模型在复杂多轮推理中的显著差距。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
While large language models have shown impressive capabilities across a wide range of domains, they still encounter significant challenges in reasoning tasks that require gathering evidence over multiple turns and drawing logical conclusions. These challenges present significant obstacles for LLM chat user interfaces, which rely on multi-turn interactions to facilitate effective collaboration. This limitation leads to real-world issues; for example, service chatbots must gather necessary information from customers over multiple turns to diagnose and resolve problems effectively. Despite the multi-turn nature of many real-world LLM use cases, most existing benchmarks rely on carefully curated single-turn tests, which often blur the line between memorization and genuine reasoning. To address this, we introduce the Wason Inductive Logic Test (WILT), a simple yet challenging multi-turn reasoning benchmark designed to resist memorization. WILT is inspired by the Wason 2-4-6 task, where participants must infer a boolean function involving three variables (e.g., $x < y < z$) by proposing test cases (such as $(2, 4, 6)$). In WILT, each test starts from a clean slate, with only the initial instructions provided, preventing models from relying on pre-learned responses. Over several turns, models must interact with the environment by suggesting test cases to narrow the possible hypotheses and ultimately infer the hidden function based on the outcomes. Our findings reveal that LLMs struggle with this task, exhibiting distinct strengths and weaknesses: some are better at narrowing down the hypothesis space by proposing valuable test cases, while others are more adept at deducing the hidden function from observed cases. Despite these variations, the best-performing model achieves only 28% accuracy, highlighting a significant gap in LLM performance on complex multi-turn reasoning tasks.
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。