HackerPapers

arXiv:2307.02477cs.CL

Reasoning or Reciting? Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Through Counterfactual Tasks

Zhaofeng Wu, Linlu Qiu, Alexis Ross, Ekin Akyürek, Boyuan Chen, Bailin Wang, Najoung Kim, Jacob Andreas, Yoon Kim

Abstract

The impressive performance of recent language models across a wide range of tasks suggests that they possess a degree of abstract reasoning skills. Are these skills general and transferable, or specialized to specific tasks seen during pretraining? To disentangle these effects, we propose an evaluation framework based on "counterfactual" task variants that deviate from the default assumptions underlying standard tasks. Across a suite of 11 tasks, we observe nontrivial performance on the counterfactual variants, but nevertheless find that performance substantially and consistently degrades compared to the default conditions. This suggests that while current LMs may possess abstract task-solving skills to an extent, they often also rely on narrow, non-transferable procedures for task-solving. These results motivate a more careful interpretation of language model performance that teases apart these aspects of behavior.

arXiv comments
NAACL 2024
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 7 identifiable commenters in 7 comments across 6 threads, from Jul 2023 to Nov 2024. Found in 1 HN submission from Sep 2023 to Sep 2023. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments6 threads

    • Is there something more than prediction going on? I'd like to understand why there would be studies like this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02477 if it's all just prediction. Are there some algorithms that are called "reasoning", that are somewhere between prediction and…

      dl9999View on HNParent context

    • It appears that you are the only person in this discussion making many incorrect assumptions. Based on your comments, I would assume you are actually googling those papers based on their abstracts. Your last linked paper has flawed methodology for what it attempts to…

      HAL3000View on HNParent context

    • >Your last linked paper has flawed methodology for what it attempts to demonstrate, as shown in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02477 Genuinely, What's wrong with the methodology? Your paper literally admits humans would also perform worse at counterfactuals. Worse than a…

      famouswafflesView on HNParent context

    • Same, I've been pretty impressed as well and typically give Claude a shot. Sometimes I even pass their results back and forth in an LLM collab so they generate more diverse perspectives. However, this paper from 4 days ago shows that Claude can fall apart quickly in out of…

      cowsaymooView on HNParent context

    • Yes, we cannot learn anything about reality from language alone. This is 'the intentional illusion' or you could call it 'the aboutness illusion'. As in you think you are learning a speed limit for a road by looking at a sign with a speed limit on it. But the sign itself is just…

      mjburgessView on HNParent context

  1. Will scaling work? 1 comment
    • I think it regurgitates badly, an interesting pre-print is the "reasoning or reciting" one from https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02477 But - it's only a pre-print and I don't think that they have taken it forward to a publication so handle with care. Anyway, the relevant evidence and…

      sgt101View on HNParent context

    • Exactly. Current LLMs fall over when facing counterfactuals: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02477. This is why it's mostly meaningless to for a LLM to pass the bar, but not meaningless for a human to do so. We (rightly, for the most part) assume that a human who passes the bar can…

      skepticATXView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.