CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 6

ThoughtSource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data

Ott, Simon, Hebenstreit, Konstantin, Liévin, Valentin, Hother, Christoffer Egeberg, Moradi, Milad, Mayrhauser, Maximilian, Praas, Robert, Winther, Ole +1 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2301.11596arXiv 2301.11596
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 have recently demonstrated impressive results across a wide range of tasks. LLMs are still limited, however, in that they frequently fail at complex reasoning, their reasoning processes are opaque, they are prone to 'hallucinate' facts, and there are concerns about their underlying biases. Letting models verbalize reasoning steps as natural language, a technique known as chain-of-thought prompting, has recently been proposed as a way to address some of these issues. Here we present ThoughtSource, a meta-dataset and software library for chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. The goal of ThoughtSource is to improve future artificial intelligence systems by facilitating qualitative understanding of CoTs, enabling empirical evaluations, and providing training data. This first release of ThoughtSource integrates seven scientific/medical, three general-domain and five math word question answering datasets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2301.11596

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ChatGPT's performance is acceptable on causal and analogical reasoning but poor on multi-hop reasoning, similar to other LLMs' weakness on complex reasoning.

    “Finally, while the performance of ChatGPT is acceptable on causal and analogical reasoning, it performs poorly on multi-hop reasoning ability, which is similar to the weakness of other LLMs on complex reasoning [148].”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [148]

  • LLMs have limited abilities on abstract reasoning and are prone to confusion or errors in complex contexts.

    “LLMs have limited abilities on abstract reasoning [56], and are prone to confusion or errors in complex contexts [148].”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [148]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Sanh, V. et al. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.08207 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Brown, T. B. et al. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ouyang, L. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  4. OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Wei, J. et al. Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y. & Iwasawa, Y. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2205.11916 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Huang, J. & Chang, K. C.-C. Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.10403 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Zhou, D. et al. Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2205.10625 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Yao, S. et al. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Press, O. et al. Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models. ThoughtSource: a central hub for large language model reasoning data | 19 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2210.03350 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Jung, J. et al. Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2205.11822 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dua, D., Gupta, S., Singh, S. & Gardner, M. Successive Prompting for Decomposing Complex Questions. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.04092 (2022). · DOI
  13. Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T. & Sabharwal, A. Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.10509 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Khattab, O. et al. Demonstrate-Search-Predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive NLP. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.14024 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Wang, A. et al. SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds.
  16. Wallach, H. et al.) vol. 32 3266-3280 (
  17. Fries, J. A. et al. BigBIO: A Framework for Data-Centric Biomedical Natural Language Processing. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2022). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.15076. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Gu, Y. et al. Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthc. 3, 2:1-2:23 (2021).
  19. Gao, L. et al. The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.00027 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Laurençon, H. et al. The BigScience ROOTS Corpus: A 1.6TB Composite Multilingual Dataset. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2022).
  21. Lhoest, Q. et al. Datasets: A Community Library for Natural Language Processing. in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations 175-184 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021). doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-demo.21. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Xie, Z. et al. WorldTree V2: A Corpus of Science-Domain Structured Explanations and Inference Patterns supporting Multi-Hop Inference. in Proceedings of the Twel h Language Resources and Evaluation Conference 5456-5473 (European Language Resources Association, 2020).
  23. Dalvi, B. et al. Explaining Answers with Entailment Trees. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.08661 (2022). · DOI
  24. Mihaylov, T., Clark, P., Khot, T. & Sabharwal, A. Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering. in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2381-2391 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018). doi:10.18653/v1/D18-1260. · DOI
  25. Jin, D. et al. What Disease Does This Patient Have? A Large-Scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Exams. Appl. Sci. 11, 6421 (2021). ThoughtSource: a central hub for large language model reasoning data | 20
  26. Liévin, V., Hother, C. E. & Winther, O. Can large language models reason about medical questions? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2207.08143 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Nair, V., Schumacher, E., Tso, G. & Kannan, A. DERA: Enhancing Large Language Model Completions with Dialog-Enabled Resolving Agents. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2303.17071 (2023). · DOI
  28. Pal, A., Umapathi, L. K. & Sankarasubbu, M. MedMCQA: A Large-scale Multi-Subject Multi-Choice Dataset for Medical domain Question Answering. in Proceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning 248-260 (PMLR, 2022).
  29. Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Liu, Z., Cohen, W. & Lu, X. PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering. in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) 2567-2577 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019). doi:10.18653/v1/D19-1259. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Hendrycks, D. et al. Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.03300 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N. & Berant, J. CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge. in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) 4149-4158 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019). doi:10.18653/v1/N19-1421. · DOI
  32. Geva, M. et al. Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 9, 346-361 (2021).
  33. Lamm, M. et al. QED: A Framework and Dataset for Explanations in Question Answering. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 9, 790-806 (2021).
  34. Ling, W., Yogatama, D., Dyer, C. & Blunsom, P. Program Induction by Rationale Generation: Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems. in Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 158-167 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017). doi:10.18653/v1/P17-1015. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Miao, S., Liang, C.-C. & Su, K.-Y. A Diverse Corpus for Evaluating and Developing English Math Word Problem Solvers. in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 975-984 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020). doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.92. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Cobbe, K. et al. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.14168 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  37. Koncel-Kedziorski, R., Roy, S., Amini, A., Kushman, N. & Hajishirzi, H. MAWPS: A Math Word Problem Repository. in Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 1152-1157 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016). doi:10.18653/v1/N16-1136. ThoughtSource: a central hub for large language model reasoning data | 21 · DOI
  38. Patel, A., Bhattamishra, S. & Goyal, N. Are NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems? in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 2080-2094 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021). doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.168. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Chen, M. et al. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.03374 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Hebenstreit, K., Praas, R., Kiesewetter, L. P. & Samwald, M. An automatically discovered chain-of-thought prompt generalizes to novel models and datasets. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.02897 (2023). · DOI
  41. Chung, H. W. et al. Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 (2022). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ott, S., Hebenstreit, K., Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Moradi, M., Mayrhauser, M., Praas, R., Winther, O., & Samwald, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2301.11596
arXiv
2301.11596
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review