Thailand

Large language models~(LLMs) have demonstrated striking reasoning capability. Recent works have shown the benefits to LLMs from fine-tuning golden-standard Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales or using them as correct examples in few-shot prompting. While humans can indeed imitate correct examples, learning from our mistakes is another vital aspect of human cognition. Hence, a question naturally arises: \textit{can LLMs learn and benefit from their mistakes, especially for their reasoning? }This study investigates this problem from both the prompting and model-tuning perspectives. We begin by introducing \textsc{CoTErrorSet}, a new benchmark with 609,432 questions, each designed with both correct and error references, and demonstrating the types and reasons for making such mistakes. To explore the effectiveness of those mistakes, we design two methods: (1) \textbf{Self-rethinking} prompting guides LLMs to rethink whether they have made similar previous mistakes; and (2) \textbf{Mistake tuning} involves finetuning models in both correct and incorrect reasoning domains, rather than only tuning models to learn ground truth in traditional methodology. We conduct a series of experiments to prove LLMs can obtain benefits from mistakes in both directions. Our two methods offer potentially cost-effective strategies by leveraging errors to enhance reasoning capabilities, which costs significantly less than creating meticulously hand-crafted golden references. We ultimately make a thorough analysis of the reasons behind LLMs&#39; errors, which provides directions that future research needs to overcome. \textsc{CoTErrorSet} will be published soon on \texttt{\url{https://github.com/YookiTong/Learn-from-Mistakes-CotErrorSet}}.

ACL 2024

Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs&#39; Errors to Boost for Reasoning

llms

prompting

reasoning

Large language models~(LLMs) have demonstrated striking reasoning capability. Recent works have shown the benefits to LLMs from fine-tuning golden-standard Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales or using them as correct examples in few-shot prompting. While humans can indeed imitate correct examples, learning from our mistakes is another vital aspect of human cognition. Hence, a question naturally arises: \textit{can LLMs learn and benefit from their mistakes, especially for their reasoning? }This study investigates this problem from both the prompting and model-tuning perspectives. We begin by introducing \textsc{CoTErrorSet}, a new benchmark with 609,432 questions, each designed with both correct and error references, and demonstrating the types and reasons for making such mistakes. To explore the effectiveness of those mistakes, we design two methods: (1) \textbf{Self-rethinking} prompting guides LLMs to rethink whether they have made similar previous mistakes; and (2) \textbf{Mistake tuning} involves finetuning models in both correct and incorrect reasoning domains, rather than only tuning models to learn ground truth in traditional methodology. We conduct a series of experiments to prove LLMs can obtain benefits from mistakes in both directions. Our two methods offer potentially cost-effective strategies by leveraging errors to enhance reasoning capabilities, which costs significantly less than creating meticulously hand-crafted golden references. We ultimately make a thorough analysis of the reasons behind LLMs' errors, which provides directions that future research needs to overcome. \textsc{CoTErrorSet} will be published soon on \texttt{\url{https://github.com/YookiTong/Learn-from-Mistakes-CotErrorSet}}.

Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs' Errors to Boost for Reasoning

poster

### Welcome!
The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024) will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from August 11th to 16th, 2024. Our Virtual Poster Sessions will take place online Thursday, August 22, 2024.

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.aclweb.org/registration). **

If you have already registered, please check your inbox for an email from Underline granting you access to ACL 2024 content.

Please register!

The 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2024) will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from August 11th to 16th, 2024. More information will be announced soon.

Recently, pre-trained large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in generating codes from natural language descriptions, repairing buggy codes, translating codes between languages, and retrieving relevant code segments. However, the evaluation of these models has often been performed in a scattered way on only one or two specific tasks, in a few languages, at a partial granularity (e.g., function) level, and in many cases without proper training data. Even more concerning is that in most cases the evaluation of generated codes has been done in terms of mere lexical overlap with a reference code rather than actual execution. We introduce *xCodeEval*, the largest executable multilingual multitask benchmark to date consisting of $25$ M document-level coding examples ($16.5$ B tokens) from about $7.5$ K unique problems covering up to 11 programming languages with execution-level parallelism. It features a total of $7$ tasks involving code understanding, generation, translation and retrieval. *xCodeEval* adopts an execution-based evaluation and offers a multilingual code execution engine, *ExecEval* that supports unit test based execution in all the $11$ languages. To address the challenge of balancing the distributions of text-code samples over multiple attributes in validation/test sets, we propose a novel data splitting and a data selection schema based on the geometric mean and graph-theoretic principle. Our experiments with OpenAI's LLMs (zero-shot) and open-LLMs (zero-shot and fine-tuned) on the tasks and languages demonstrate to be quite challenging as per the current advancements in language models.

XCodeEval: An Execution-based Large Scale Multilingual Multitask Benchmark for Code Understanding, Generation, Translation and Retrieval

We introduce the task of automatically revising scientific papers based on peer feedback and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits. The data is drawn from real reviewer-author interactions from computer science, and we provide labels linking each reviewer comment to the specific paper edits made by the author in response. We automatically create a high-precision silver training set, as well as an expert-labeled test set that shows high inter-annotator agreement. In experiments with 10 models covering the state of the art, we find that they struggle even to identify which edits correspond to a comment—especially when the relationship between the edit and the comment is indirect and requires reasoning to uncover. We also extensively analyze GPT-4’s ability to generate edits given a comment and the original paper. We find that it often succeeds on a superficial level, but tends to rigidly follow the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and lacks technical details compared to human-written edits.

ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviews

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral components in various autonomous agent systems.
In this study, we present an exploration-based trajectory optimization approach, referred to as ETO. This learning method is designed to enhance the performance of open LLM agents. Contrary to previous studies that exclusively train on successful expert trajectories, our method allows agents to learn from their exploration failures. This leads to improved performance through an iterative optimization framework. During the exploration phase, the agent interacts with the environment while completing given tasks, gathering failure trajectories to create contrastive trajectory pairs. In the subsequent training phase, the agent utilizes these trajectory preference pairs to update its policy using contrastive learning methods like DPO. This iterative cycle of exploration and training fosters continued improvement in the agents. Our experiments on three complex tasks demonstrate that ETO consistently surpasses baseline performance by a large margin. Furthermore, an examination of task-solving efficiency and potential in scenarios lacking expert trajectory underscores the effectiveness of our approach.

Trial and Error: Exploration-Based Trajectory Optimization of LLM Agents

Large language models (LLMs) are highly capable at a variety of tasks given the right prompt, but writing one is still a difficult and tedious process. In this work, we introduce ConstitutionalExperts, a method for learning a prompt consisting of constitutional principles (i.e. rules), given a training dataset. Unlike prior methods that optimize the prompt as a single entity, our method incrementally improves the prompt by surgically editing individual principles. We also show that we can improve overall performance by learning unique prompts for different semantic regions of the training data and using a mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture to route inputs at inference time. We compare our method to other state of the art prompt-optimization techniques across six benchmark datasets. We also investigate whether MoE improves these other techniques. Our results suggest that ConstitutionalExperts outperforms other prompt optimization techniques by 10.9% (F1) and that mixture-of-experts improves all techniques, suggesting its broad applicability.

ConstitutionalExperts: Training a Mixture of Principle-based Prompts

Benchmarks have emerged as the central approach for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs). The research community often relies on a model’s average performance across the test prompts of a benchmark to evaluate the model’s performance. This is consistent with the assumption that the test prompts within a benchmark represent a random sample from some real-world distribution of interest. We note that this is generally not the case; instead, we hold that the distribution of interest varies according to the specific use case. Hence, we analyze the robustness of LLM benchmarks to their underlying distributional assumptions. We find that (1) the correlation in model performance across test prompts is non-random, (2) accounting for correlations across test prompts can change model rankings on major benchmarks, (3) explanatory factors for these correlations include semantic similarity and common LLM failure points.

Examining the robustness of LLM evaluation to the distributional assumptions of benchmarks

We propose a method to teach multiple large language models (LLM) to collaborate by interleaving their generations at the token level. We model the decision of which LLM generates the next token as a latent variable. By optimizing the marginal likelihood of a training set under our latent variable model, the base LLM automatically learns when to generate itself and when to call on one of the ``assistant'' language models to generate, all without direct supervision. Token-level collaboration during decoding allows for a fusion of each model's expertise in a manner tailored to the specific task at hand. Our collaborative decoding is especially useful in cross-domain settings where a generalist base LLM learns to invoke domain expert models. On instruction-following, domain-specific QA, and reasoning tasks, we show that the performance of the joint system exceeds that of the individual models. Through qualitative analysis, we show models trained with our method exhibit several interesting collaboration patterns, e.g., template-filling, by visualizing the learned latent decisions.

Learning to Decode Collaboratively with Multiple Language Models

Neural networks offer good approximation to many tasks but consistently fail to reach perfect generalization, even when theoretical work shows that such perfect solutions can be expressed by certain architectures. Using the task of formal language learning, we focus on one simple formal language and show that the theoretically correct solution is in fact not an optimum of commonly used objectives --- even with regularization techniques that according to common wisdom should lead to simple weights and good generalization (L1, L2) or other meta-heuristics (early-stopping, dropout). On the other hand, replacing standard targets with the Minimum Description Length objective (MDL) results in the correct solution being an optimum.

Bridging the Empirical-Theoretical Gap in Neural Network Formal Language Learning Using Minimum Description Length

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in various natural language understanding tasks with a few demonstration examples via in-context learning. Common strategies to boost such ``in-context'' learning ability are to ensemble multiple model decoded results and require the model to generate an explanation along with the prediction. However, these models often treat different class predictions equally and neglect the potential discrepancy between the explanations and predictions. To fully unleash the power of explanations, we propose EASE, an \emph{Explanation-Aware Soft Ensemble} framework to empower in-context learning with LLMs. We design two techniques, explanation-guided ensemble, and soft probability aggregation, to mitigate the effect of unreliable explanations and improve the consistency between explanations and final predictions. Experiments on seven natural language understanding tasks and four varying-size LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework.

Explanation-aware Soft Ensemble Empowers Large Language Model In-context Learning

Direct dependency parsing of the speech signal --as opposed to parsing speech transcriptions-- has recently been proposed as a task (Pupier et al. 2022), as a way of incorporating prosodic information in the parsing system and bypassing the limitations of a pipeline approach that would consist of using first an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) system and then a syntactic parser. In this article, we report on a set of experiments aiming at assessing the performance of two parsing paradigms (graph-based parsing and sequence labeling based parsing) on speech parsing. We perform this evaluation on a large treebank of spoken French, featuring realistic spontaneous conversations. Our findings show that (i) the graph based approach obtain better results across the board (ii) parsing directly from speech outperforms a pipeline approach, despite having 30% fewer parameters.

Growing Trees on Sounds: Assessing Strategies for End-to-End Dependency Parsing of Speech

The most popular Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution (CDEC) datasets fail to convey the true difficulty of the task, due to the lack of lexical diversity between coreferring event triggers (words or phrases that refer to an event). Furthermore, there is a dearth of event datasets for figurative language, limiting a crucial avenue of research in event comprehension. We address these two issues by introducing ECB+META, a lexically rich variant of Event Coref Bank Plus (ECB+) for CDEC on symbolic and metaphoric language. We use ChatGPT as a tool for the metaphoric transformation of sentences in the documents of ECB+, then tag the original event triggers in the transformed sentences in a semi-automated manner. In this way, we avoid the re-annotation of expensive coreference links. We present results that show existing methods that work well on ECB+ struggle with ECB+META, thereby paving the way for CDEC research on a much more challenging dataset. Code/data: https://github.com/ahmeshaf/llms_coref

Premium content

Can LLMs Learn from Previous Mistakes? Investigating LLMs' Errors to Boost for Reasoning

Downloads

Next from ACL 2024

XCodeEval: An Execution-based Large Scale Multilingual Multitask Benchmark for Code Understanding, Generation, Translation and Retrieval

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES