An official website of the United States government
Large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-3 and GPT-4, have demonstrated exceptional performance in various natural language processing tasks and have shown the ability to solve certain reasoning problems. However, their reasoning capabilities are limited and relatively shallow, despite the application of various prompting techniques. In contrast, formal logic is adept at handling complex reasoning, but translating natural language descriptions into formal logic is a challenging task that non-experts struggle with. This paper proposes a neuro-symbolic method that combines the strengths of large language models and answer set programming. Specifically, we employ an LLM to transform natural language descriptions of logic puzzles into answer set programs. We carefully design prompts for an LLM to convert natural language descriptions into answer set programs in a step by step manner. Surprisingly, with just a few in-context learning examples, LLMs can generate reasonably complex answer set programs. The majority of errors made are relatively simple and can be easily corrected by humans, thus enabling LLMs to effectively assist in the creation of answer set programs.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 1, 2026
Solving Math Word Problems Using Estimation Verification and Equation Generation
Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at various tasks, including problem-solving and question-answering. How- ever, LLMs often find Math Word Problems (MWPs) chal- lenging because solving them requires a range of reasoning and mathematical abilities with which LLMs seem to struggle. Recent efforts have helped LLMs solve more complex MWPs with improved prompts. This study proposes a novel method that initially prompts an LLM to create equations from a decomposition of the question, followed by using an external symbolic equation solver to produce an answer. To ensure the accuracy of the obtained answer, inspired by an established recommendation of math teachers, the LLM is instructed to solve the MWP a second time, but this time with the objective of estimating the correct answer instead of solving it exactly. The estimation is then compared to the generated answer to verify. If verification fails, an iterative rectification process is employed to ensure the correct answer is eventually found. This approach achieves new state-of-the-art results on datasets used by prior published research on numeric and algebraic MWPs, improving the previous best results by nearly two percent on average. In addition, the approach obtains satisfactory results on trigonometric MWPs, a task not previously attempted to the authors’ best knowledge. This study also introduces two new datasets, SVAMPClean and Trig300, to further advance the testing of LLMs’ reasoning abilities.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2349452
- PAR ID:
- 10655816
- Publisher / Repository:
- International Conference on Machine Learning Applications (ICMLA)
- Date Published:
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Math word problems, Large language models, Answer estimation, Trigonometric word problems
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Florida
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Prior work has combined chain-of-thought prompting in large language models (LLMs) with programmatic representations to perform effective and transparent reasoning. While such an approach works well for tasks that only require forward reasoning (e.g., straightforward arithmetic), it is less effective for constraint solving problems that require more sophisticated planning and search. In this paper, we propose a new satisfiability-aided language modeling (SatLM) approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We use an LLM to generate a declarative task specification rather than an imperative program and leverage an off-the-shelf automated theorem prover to derive the final answer. This approach has two key advantages. The declarative specification is closer to the problem description than the reasoning steps are, so the LLM can parse it out of the description more accurately. Furthermore, by offloading the actual reasoning task to an automated theorem prover, our approach can guarantee the correctness of the answer with respect to the parsed specification and avoid planning errors in the solving process. We evaluate SATLM on 8 different datasets and show that it consistently outperforms program-aided LMs in the imperative paradigm. In particular, SATLM outperforms program-aided LMs by 23% on a challenging subset of the GSM arithmetic reasoning dataset; SATLM also achieves a new SoTA on LSAT and BoardgameQA, surpassing previous models that are trained on the respective training sets.more » « less
-
While large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 have achieved impressive results on multiple choice question answering (MCQA) tasks in the zero, one, and few-shot settings, they generally lag behind the MCQA state of the art (SOTA). MCQA tasks have traditionally been presented to LLMs like cloze tasks. An LLM is conditioned on a question (without the associated answer options) and its chosen option is the one assigned the highest probability after normalization (for length, etc.). A more natural prompting approach is to present the question and answer options to the LLM jointly and have it output the symbol (e.g., “A”) associated with its chosen answer option. This approach allows the model to explicitly compare answer options, reduces computational costs, and mitigates the effects of tokenization scheme and answer option representations on answer selection. For the natural approach to be effective, the LLM it is used with must be able to associate answer options with the symbols that represent them. The LLM needs what we term multiple choice symbol binding (MCSB) ability. This ability varies greatly by model. We show that a model with high MCSB ability performs much better with the natural approach than with the traditional approach across 20 diverse datasets and largely closes the gap with the SOTA, suggesting that the MCQA ability of LLMs has been previously underestimated.more » « less
-
High-quality benchmarks are essential for evaluating reasoning and retrieval capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, curating datasets for this purpose is not a permanent solution as they are prone to data leakage and inflated performance results. To address these challenges, we propose PhantomWiki: a pipeline to generate unique and factually consistent document corpora with diverse question-answer pairs. Unlike prior work, PhantomWiki is neither a fixed dataset, nor is it based on any existing data. Instead, a new PhantomWiki instance is generated on demand for each evaluation. We vary the question difficulty and corpus size to disentangle reasoning and retrieval capabilities respectively, and find that PhantomWiki datasets are surprisingly challenging for frontier LLMs. Thus, we contribute a scalable and data leakage-resistant framework for disentangled evaluation of reasoning, retrieval, and tool-use abilities.more » « less
-
Does prompting a large language model (LLM) like GPT-3 with explanations improve in-context learning? We study this question on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We test the performance of four LLMs on three textual reasoning datasets using prompts that include explanations in multiple different styles. For these tasks, we find that including explanations in the prompts for OPT, GPT-3 (davinci), and InstructGPT (text-davinci-001) only yields small to moderate accuracy improvements over standard few-show learning. However, text-davinci-002 is able to benefit more substantially. We further show that explanations generated by the LLMs may not entail the models' predictions nor be factually grounded in the input, even on simple tasks with extractive explanations. However, these flawed explanations can still be useful as a way to verify LLMs' predictions post-hoc. Through analysis in our three settings, we show that explanations judged by humans to be good---logically consistent with the input and the prediction---more likely cooccur with accurate predictions. Following these observations, we train calibrators using automatically extracted scores that assess the reliability of explanations, allowing us to improve performance post-hoc across all of our datasets.more » « less
