Abstract
In enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), prior research primarily focuses on specific prompting techniques such as few-shot or zero-shot chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. These methods, while effective, often involve manually intensive prompt engineering. Our study takes a novel approach by asking: Can LLMs reason effectively without prompting? Our findings reveal that, intriguingly, CoT reasoning paths can be elicited from pre-trained LLMs by simply altering the decoding process. Rather than conventional greedy decoding, we investigate the top-k alternative tokens, uncovering that CoT paths are frequently inherent in these sequences. This approach not only bypasses the confounders of prompting but also allows us to assess the LLMs' intrinsic reasoning abilities. Moreover, we observe that the presence of a CoT in the decoding path correlates with a higher confidence in the model's decoded answer. This confidence metric effectively differentiates between CoT and non-CoT paths. Extensive empirical studies on various reasoning benchmarks show that the proposed CoT-decoding substantially outperforms the standard greedy decoding.
Community
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Guided by Evolutionary Algorithms in Large Language Models (2024)
- A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications (2024)
- Evidence to Generate (E2G): A Single-agent Two-step Prompting for Context Grounded and Retrieval Augmented Reasoning (2024)
- Deductive Beam Search: Decoding Deducible Rationale for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning (2024)
- Divide and Conquer for Large Language Models Reasoning (2024)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment:
@librarian-bot
recommend
Honestly I was a bit confused reading this. How do they identify CoT paths?
Interestingly, upon examining the model’s logits, we found that the presence of a CoT path typically
leads to a more confident decoding of the final answer, characterized by a significant probability
disparity between the top and secondary tokens
"typically" is a neat finding but not very prescriptive.
I could be wrong here, but it looked like beam search with some cool findings. Its neat but marketed as something different.
Here is the github link for that.
I have done an independent implementation of the technique of CoT Decoding in optillm - https://github.com/codelion/optillm/blob/main/optillm/cot_decoding.py
It works with any model from HuggingFace, and can be tried in this Google Colab Notebook - https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1SpuUb8d9xAoTh32M-9wJsB50AOH54EaH?usp=sharing
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper