doi
stringlengths 10
10
| chunk-id
stringlengths 1
4
| chunk
stringlengths 1
1.66k
| id
stringlengths 10
10
| title
stringlengths 19
148
| summary
stringlengths 345
1.92k
| source
stringlengths 31
31
| authors
sequence | categories
sequence | comment
stringlengths 4
284
⌀ | journal_ref
stringclasses 14
values | primary_category
stringclasses 16
values | published
stringlengths 8
8
| updated
stringlengths 8
8
| references
list |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2209.07686 | 63 | COT CC OT (ours) C OT CC OT (ours) C OT CC OT (ours) C OT CC OT (ours)
GSM-8 K(Table 33) 27.4 % 29.1% 46.9% 52.4% 65.6% 62.5% 53.2% 56.2%
DATE(Table 34) 44.7 % 51.3% 54.1% 61.1% 69.2% 70.0% 65.3% 69.1%
SPORTS (Table 35) 93.7 % 94.6% 63.5% 74.5% 98.2% 98.4% 95.4% 97.4%
SORTING (table 41) 55.3 % 60.2% 26.8% 99.8% 27.2% 100% 71.2% 88.6%
CCOT outperforms C OT while employing prompts with fewer tokens. The task solve rate of CC OT remains
relatively high as we scale the model to PaLM-540 B, highlighting the efficiency of CC OT. AppendixTable 36 compares the average number of input/output tokens between C OT and CC OT. On average, CC OT
(our approach) reduces the number of input (1.39 ) and output tokens (1.58 ).
9. R ELATED WORK | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 64 | (our approach) reduces the number of input (1.39 ) and output tokens (1.58 ).
9. R ELATED WORK
Broadly, this paper intersects with a growing body of work on prompting and large language model reasoning (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022). Below, we review the most relevant work in these
directions.
Exploring the role of examples in few-shot setup With the growing interest in few-shot prompting, several
works have explored the role that in-context examples play in the success of few-shot prompting. Notably,
Min et al. (2022) find that label correctness is not crucial for the success of the models, and even random
labels might lead to competitive performance. Building on this work, Kim et al. (2022) find that the role
of the correctness of the labels might be task-dependent. Our findings concur with these methods on label
correctness—for GSM-8 K, label correctness is not material, whereas it plays a larger role for S PORTS .
Surprisingly, we find cases where wrong examples can improve performance by being better indicators of
the end task. Our work goes beyond label correctness explored by these methods and teases apart the | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 65 | Surprisingly, we find cases where wrong examples can improve performance by being better indicators of
the end task. Our work goes beyond label correctness explored by these methods and teases apart the
role of placeholder symbols, patterns, and text in the success of few-shot models. Finally, in addition to
comparing the final results (outcome), we also focus on the mechanism (attention patterns), allowing us to
reveal instances where model reasoning is identical. Our results also resonate with the work of Reynolds &
McDonell (2021), who found that one of the key roles played by the prompt is to remind the model of the
underlying task.
Razeghi et al. (2022) find that pre-training term frequencies can somewhat explain the success of few-shot
methods. In line with their work, our experiments on S PORTS also show that D IRECT prompting method is
most suited for easy questions (involving personalities and activities found on the web). Finally, Xie et al.
(2021) show that in-context learning enables a large model to infer a shared concept between the examples,
possibly leading to better task understanding. Our studies on the role of prompt, especially examples where
wrong examples lead to better output (e.g., for S ORTING ), add more empirical evidence to this finding. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 66 | wrong examples lead to better output (e.g., for S ORTING ), add more empirical evidence to this finding.
Further, we show that a symbiotic relationship between text and patterns allows a more efficient inference
of task instruction.
Least to most prompting. Zhou et al. (2022) help the model generate a chain of thought by first asking
the model to generate the sub-questions for the given problem. Next, the model is asked to answer the subquestions, and finally, the sub-questions, along with sub-answers, are combined to generate the final result.
This work is closely related to Kojima et al. (2022), the latter distinguished by generating the rationale from
13
a large language model directly. We posit that Zhou et al. (2022) derives its key strengths from its ability to
generate useful sub-steps. This resonates with our finding that the key contribution of CoT is the extraction
of meaningful sub-steps.
Rationale generation as an intermediate step The idea of generating rationales as an intermediate output
for reasoning and structured generation tasks has shown promising results for fine-tuned models (Ling et al., | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 67 | for reasoning and structured generation tasks has shown promising results for fine-tuned models (Ling et al.,
2017; Sun et al., 2019; Rajani et al., 2019; Shwartz et al., 2020; Madaan et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021; Gu
et al., 2022). Recently, Wei et al. (2022) proposed chain-of-thought prompting, which shows that few-shot
setups can also be improved by making the model first generate an understanding of the output.
As a natural extension to C OT, Wang et al. (2022b) seek to improve C OT using over-generation using selfconsistency . They sample multiple outputs, and take a plurality vote (i.e. most frequently generated answer)
to arrive at the final answer. This general idea of enforcing the model outputs to be consistent has also
been explored for symbolic-commonsense reasoning (Kassner et al., 2021). The efficacy of this approach is
corroborated by Wang et al. (2022a), who report that taking multiple samples helps a model become robust
to settings in a few-shot setup. Our work looks at understanding the efficacy of C OT in the standard setup
of generating a single output per input. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 68 | to settings in a few-shot setup. Our work looks at understanding the efficacy of C OT in the standard setup
of generating a single output per input.
Prompt selection. Several works have recently explored the design of the prompt—a process often called
“prompt engineering” (Le Scao & Rush, 2021; Liu et al., 2021c). The methods include dynamically creating
prompts based on the question (Liu et al., 2021a; Rubin et al., 2021; Poesia et al., 2021), formatting the
prompt as a list or questions (Mishra et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2021), improving order of examples in
the prompt (Lu et al., 2022), and providing instructions in the task (Ouyang et al., 2022). Unlike these
techniques, C OT is relatively robust to minor changes in the prompt design. Thus, the findings of our work
might be more generally applicable.
Explaining model behavior using counterfactual prompts and attention. As noted by Jacovi & Goldberg (2020), an explanation of a deep learning system typically serves two different purposes: i) plausibility,
which aims to provide an interpretation of system outputs that is convincing for humans, and ii) faithfulness,
which aims to capture the actual reasoning process of a model. Our study requires both and uses different | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 69 | which aims to capture the actual reasoning process of a model. Our study requires both and uses different
means to achieve them. We utilize counterfactual prompts to interpret the system outputs to aid human understanding. This is similar to using posthoc analysis tools (Ribeiro et al., 2016; Lundberg & Lee, 2017; Liu
et al., 2021b), which also focus on analyzing outputs without concern for the details of the model. To get
a glimpse of the model’s inner workings, we leverage attention (Vaswani et al., 2017), a ubiquitous mechanism in NLP. While the broader question on the utility of attention for posthoc analysis is still open (Jain
& Wallace, 2019; Pruthi et al., 2020), there is some evidence to show that attention can act as an explanation (Wiegreffe & Pinter, 2019). Finally, the utility of any explanation mechanism is closely tied to the users
and application domain (Kaur et al., 2020; Burkart & Huber, 2021). As our analysis shows, attention adds
intuition and insights to the empirical findings.
Counterfactual explanations seek to explain the behavior of a model by performing a what if analysis on | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 70 | intuition and insights to the empirical findings.
Counterfactual explanations seek to explain the behavior of a model by performing a what if analysis on
examples (Mothilal et al., 2020; Stepin et al., 2021; Verma et al., 2020; Poyiadzi et al., 2020; Goyal et al.,
2019). While counterfactuals can be misleading due to artifacts (e.g., see (Laugel et al., 2019; Slack et al.,
2021)), they offer a tractable solution for probing large models like PaLM and GPT-3. Notably, unlike finetuned methods, the most important examples for generating the model output are readily available. Thus,
counterfactual inputs that show a consistent and systematic change in the model performance are more likely
to reflect the model’s behavior.
10. C ONCLUSIONS
This work evaluates the capacity of C OT to elevate complex reasoning in three state-of-the-arts LLMs,
PaLM, GPT-3, and C ODEX . We systematically assembled a series of controlled counterfactual experiments.
14
Our results show the initial inklings of connection between text, patterns, and reasoning in LLMs. Our study
indicates that the symbiosis of text and patterns bears more weight in the chain of thought reasoning process. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 71 | indicates that the symbiosis of text and patterns bears more weight in the chain of thought reasoning process.
In addition, we assert that text is a channel to extract semantic patterns, unlocking the ability of these models
to mold correct answers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to extend our gratitude towards Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Denny Zhou, Victor Veitch, Saleem
Abdulrasool, Shruthi Sukumar, Milad Hashemi, Douglas Eck, Christian Szegedy, and Stella Aslibekyan.
We also thank the PaLM team and our extended team at Google Research, Brain Team who enabled this
research and helped us conduct our experiments.
15
REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT
We take the following steps to enable the reproducibility of our work.
Controlling for randomness due to the order of examples. We run each experiment with multiple random
seeds to control for randomness due to the order of examples in the prompt. We report the average and
standard deviation of the results across all the random seeds. Additionally, we conduct statistical significance tests (McNemar’s test (McNemar, 1947)) to compare the results across different prompts. Finally, we
evaluate the agreement in output generated by different models using Cohen’s kappa ( ) metric. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 72 | evaluate the agreement in output generated by different models using Cohen’s kappa ( ) metric.
Reproducing results. We open sourced the code at https://github.com/google-research/
google-research/tree/master/l2da/learned2design . In addition, we have provided scripts for one-click
reproduction of the results for the publicly available models in the paper.
Experiments with publicly available models. We experiment with three different language models: PaLM,
GPT-3 ( text-davinci-002 ), and C ODEX (code-davinci-002 ). PaLM is not publicly available as of submission time, but the provided source code is compatible with OpenAI API v0.23.0, and can work with any
OpenAI models. Finally, C ODEX is free to use as of submission time that further helps with the reproducibility of the results.
Prompts and outputs. All the prompts are included in the prompts/ directory. The generated outputs
from GPT-3 and C ODEX are provided in the outputs/ directory. Each output file follows a standard naming convention: task _name _model _name _sseed:jsonl . Each line of the output file is a json with three | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 73 | fields: 1. prompt + test question ( “question” ), 2. generated answer ( “generated_answer” ), 3. true answer
(“answer” ) . A shortened output example is as follows:
1{
2 " question ": "Q: Is the following sentence plausible ? ’Jonas
Valanciunas beat the buzzer .’\ nA: Jonas Valanciunas is a
basketball player . Beating the buzzer is part of basketball . The
answer is yes ... Q: Is the following sentence plausible ? ’
Malcolm Brogdon banked the shot in .’\ nA: Malcolm Brogdon is a
basketball player . Banking the shot in is part of basketball .
The answer is yes .\n\n\nQ: Is the following sentence plausible ?
’Sam Darnold passed the puck .’\ nA: Sam Darnold is an American
football player . Passing the puck is part of hockey , not
American football . The answer is no .\n\n\nQ: Yes or no: Is the
following sentence plausible ? \" Javi Martinez launched the
desperation heave .\"\ nA :",
3 " generated_answer ": " Javi Martinez is a soccer player . Launching a | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 74 | desperation heave .\"\ nA :",
3 " generated_answer ": " Javi Martinez is a soccer player . Launching a
desperation heave is part of basketball , not soccer . The answer
is no .",
4 " answer ": "no",
5 " is_correct ": 1
6}
16
ETHICS STATEMENT
Disseminating reasoning into machines has numerous benefits and applications, from algorithmic reasoning (Li et al., 2022) to code generation (Chen et al., 2021b; Poesia et al., 2021) and formal verification (Wu
et al., 2022). While this research does not directly enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language
models, it identifies several systematic behavioral patterns in the functioning of few-shot models.
Similar to any technological advances, this work has risks of detrimental societal impact. However, anticipating potential future downsides of such methods is challenging. More than ever, the research community’s
utmost responsibility is to acknowledge these risks candidly and reflect on practices and strategies to prevent
potential harm.
Environmental impact. Training large language models devour a nontrivial amount of compute resources, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 75 | potential harm.
Environmental impact. Training large language models devour a nontrivial amount of compute resources,
a limiting factor for frequent training. Few-shot prompting is an appealing solution for mitigating the unfavorable environmental impact of large language models by evading additional iterations of training and
dataset collection. Ours and similar studies may lead to more effective prompting techniques and bring
technological innovation to the architecture of large language models, especially regarding their reasoning
capabilities. Therefore, we hope that the significant compute used in this work can help promote positive
environmental outcomes.
Finally, aligned with the credible concerns of the research community, we recognize the longer-term risk
of Excellence in artificial intelligence, primarily when it boils down to human reasoning. While distilling
comparable human reasoning to machines offers many benefits, undisciplined and uncontrolled progress in
this area could be alarming, especially in the presence of bad actors. Effective reasoning in machines as a
result of our study, even though not directly, can lead to algorithmic advances that may facilitate bad actors
in developing malicious software and systems with human-level capabilities.
We also want to acknowledge a large body of researchers that has greeted innovations in large language | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 76 | in developing malicious software and systems with human-level capabilities.
We also want to acknowledge a large body of researchers that has greeted innovations in large language
models and steady scaling of models with skepticism, questioning the connection between human reasoning and large language models (Han et al., 2022; Binz & Schulz, 2022). Additionally, recent efforts have
started exploring the relationship between the structure of contemporary language models and the human
mind (Schrimpf et al., 2021; Tang & Ha, 2021; Whittington et al., 2021). Despite their progress, the rationale behind C OT’s mimicking human reasoning, and any potential connection with linguistics is so far an
uncharted territory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn,
Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian
Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil J
Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Kuang-Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Linda | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 77 | Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Kuang-Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Linda
Luu, Carolina Parada, Peter Pastor, Jornell Quiambao, Kanishka Rao, Jarek Rettinghouse, Diego Reyes,
Pierre Sermanet, Nicolas Sievers, Clayton Tan, Alexander Toshev, Vincent Vanhoucke, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao,
Peng Xu, Sichun Xu, Mengyuan Yan, and Andy Zeng. Do as I Can, not as I Say: Grounding Language in
Robotic Affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691 , 2022.
Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi.
MathQA: Towards Interpretable Math Word Problem Solving with Operation-Based Formalisms. In ACL,
2019.
BIG-bench Collaboration. Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and Extrapolating the Capabilities of
Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615 , 2022.
17
Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. Using Cognitive Psychology to Understand GPT-3. arXiv preprint | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 78 | 17
Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. Using Cognitive Psychology to Understand GPT-3. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2206.14576 , 2022.
Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind
Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss,
Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens
Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack
Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. Language
Models are Few-Shot Learners. In NeurIPS , 2020.
Nadia Burkart and Marco F Huber. A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning. JAIR ,
2021.
Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 79 | 2021.
Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan,
Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger,
Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe
Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel
Herbert-V oss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin,
Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh
Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 80 | Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati,
Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 ,
2021a.
Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan,
Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger,
Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe
Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel
Herbert-V oss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 81 | Herbert-V oss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin,
Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh
Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati,
Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. arXiv:2107.03374 [cs] , 2021b.
arXiv: 2107.03374.
Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts,
Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 82 | Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha
Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk
Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito,
David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani
Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor
Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 83 | Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi
Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311 , 2022.
Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse,
and John Schulman. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 ,
2021.
Jacob Cohen. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and psychological measurement ,
1960.
18
Elaine Espindola. A Systemic Functional Translation Analysis of Thematic Structure: Directing Attention
to Yoda’s Linguistic Manifestation. Word , 2016.
Amir Feder, Katherine A. Keith, Emaad Manzoor, Reid Pryzant, Dhanya Sridhar, Zach Wood-Doughty, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 84 | Amir Feder, Katherine A. Keith, Emaad Manzoor, Reid Pryzant, Dhanya Sridhar, Zach Wood-Doughty,
Jacob Eisenstein, Justin Grimmer, Roi Reichart, Margaret E. Roberts, Brandon M. Stewart, Victor Veitch,
and Diyi Yang. Causal Inference in Natural Language Processing: Estimation, Prediction, Interpretation
and Beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00725 , 2021.
Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Aremu Anuoluwapo, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh D.
Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ond ˇrej Dušek, Chris Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 85 | Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van
Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Rubungo Andre Niyongabo, Salomey Osei,
Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez,
Sashank Santhanam, João Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola,
and Jiawei Zhou. The GEM Benchmark: Natural Language Generation, its Evaluation and Metrics. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2102.01672 , 2021.
Yash Goyal, Ziyan Wu, Jan Ernst, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. Counterfactual Visual Explanations. In ICML , 2019. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 86 | Yash Goyal, Ziyan Wu, Jan Ernst, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. Counterfactual Visual Explanations. In ICML , 2019.
Yuling Gu, Bhavana Dalvi, and Peter Clark. DREAM: Improving Situational QA by First Elaborating the
Situation. In NAACL , 2022.
Simon Jerome Han, Keith Ransom, Andrew Perfors, and Charles Kemp. Human-like Property Induction is
a Challenge for Large Language Models. PsyArXiv , 2022.
Micha Heilbron, Kristijan Armeni, Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen, Peter Hagoort, and Floris P De Lange. A Hierarchy of Linguistic Predictions During Natural Language Comprehension. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences , 2022.
Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration. In ICLR , 2019.
Curtis Honeycutt. Correct Grammar, Yoda’s Speech Is? Correct Grammar, Yoda’s Speech Is?, 2019.
Accessed: 2022-08-15.
IMDB. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 87 | Accessed: 2022-08-15.
IMDB. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back,
1980. Accessed: 2022-08-15.
Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How Should We Define
and Evaluate Faithfulness? In ACL, 2020.
Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. Attention is not Explanation. In NAACL , 2019.
Norman P. Jouppi, Cliff Young, Nishant Patil, David Patterson, Gaurav Agrawal, Raminder Bajwa, Sarah
Bates, Suresh Bhatia, Nan Boden, Al Borchers, Rick Boyle, Pierre-luc Cantin, Clifford Chao, Chris
Clark, Jeremy Coriell, Mike Daley, Matt Dau, Jeffrey Dean, Ben Gelb, Tara Vazir Ghaemmaghami, Rajendra Gottipati, William Gulland, Robert Hagmann, C. Richard Ho, Doug Hogberg, John Hu, Robert
Hundt, Dan Hurt, Julian Ibarz, Aaron Jaffey, Alek Jaworski, Alexander Kaplan, Harshit Khaitan, Daniel | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 88 | Hundt, Dan Hurt, Julian Ibarz, Aaron Jaffey, Alek Jaworski, Alexander Kaplan, Harshit Khaitan, Daniel
Killebrew, Andy Koch, Naveen Kumar, Steve Lacy, James Laudon, James Law, Diemthu Le, Chris Leary,
Zhuyuan Liu, Kyle Lucke, Alan Lundin, Gordon MacKean, Adriana Maggiore, Maire Mahony, Kieran
Miller, Rahul Nagarajan, Ravi Narayanaswami, Ray Ni, Kathy Nix, Thomas Norrie, Mark Omernick,
Narayana Penukonda, Andy Phelps, Jonathan Ross, Matt Ross, Amir Salek, Emad Samadiani, Chris Severn, Gregory Sizikov, Matthew Snelham, Jed Souter, Dan Steinberg, Andy Swing, Mercedes Tan, Gregory
Thorson, Bo Tian, Horia Toma, Erick Tuttle, Vijay Vasudevan, Richard Walter, Walter Wang, Eric Wilcox,
and Doe Hyun Yoon. In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit. In ISCA , 2017.
Norman P. Jouppi, Doe Hyun Yoon, Matthew Ashcraft, Mark Gottscho, Thomas B. Jablin, George Kurian, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 89 | Norman P. Jouppi, Doe Hyun Yoon, Matthew Ashcraft, Mark Gottscho, Thomas B. Jablin, George Kurian,
James Laudon, Sheng Li, Peter Ma, Xiaoyu Ma, Thomas Norrie, Nishant Patil, Sushma Prasad, Cliff
19
Young, Zongwei Zhou, and David Patterson. Ten Lessons from Three Generations Shaped Google’s
TPUv4i: Industrial Product. In ISCA , 2021.
Michael Kaminski. Yoda-Speak: A Study of Yoda’s Speaking Pattern and Their Frequencies. The Secret
History of Star Wars , 2011.
Nora Kassner, Oyvind Tafjord, Hinrich Schütze, and Peter Clark. BeliefBank: Adding Memory to a PreTrained Language Model for a Systematic Notion of Belief. In EMNLP , 2021.
Harmanpreet Kaur, Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Rich Caruana, Hanna M. Wallach, and Jennifer Wortman
Vaughan. Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists’ Use of Interpretability Tools for
Machine Learning. In CHI, 2020. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 90 | Vaughan. Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists’ Use of Interpretability Tools for
Machine Learning. In CHI, 2020.
Junyeob Kim, Hyuhng Joon Kim, Hyunsoo Cho, Hwiyeol Jo, Sang-Woo Lee, Sang-goo Lee, Kang Min Yoo,
and Taeuk Kim. Ground-Truth Labels Matter: A Deeper Look into Input-Label Demonstrations. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2205.12685 , 2022.
Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large Language
Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916 , 2022.
Taku Kudo and John Richardson. SentencePiece: A Simple and Language Independent Subword Tokenizer
and Detokenizer for Neural Text Processing. In EMNLP-Demo Track , 2018.
Brenden M Lake, Tomer D Ullman, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman. Building Machines that
Learn and Think Like People. Behavioral and brain sciences , 2017.
Thibault Laugel, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Christophe Marsala, Xavier Renard, and Marcin Detyniecki. The | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 91 | Thibault Laugel, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Christophe Marsala, Xavier Renard, and Marcin Detyniecki. The
Dangers of Post-hoc Interpretability: Unjustified Counterfactual Explanations. In IJCAI , 2019.
Teven Le Scao and Alexander M Rush. How Many Data Points is a Prompt Worth? In NAACL , 2021.
Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh,
Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy
Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2206.14858 , 2022.
Yujia Li, David Choi, Junyoung Chung, Nate Kushman, Julian Schrittwieser, Rémi Leblond, Tom Eccles, James Keeling, Felix Gimeno, Agustin Dal Lago, Thomas Hubert, Peter Choy, Cyprien de Masson d’Autume, Igor Babuschkin, Xinyun Chen, Po-Sen Huang, Johannes Welbl, Sven Gowal, Alexey | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 92 | Cherepanov, James Molloy, Daniel J. Mankowitz, Esme Sutherland Robson, Pushmeet Kohli, Nando
de Freitas, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Oriol Vinyals. Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07814 , 2022.
Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. Program Induction by Rationale Generation:
Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04146 , 2017.
Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. What Makes
Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3? arXiv:2101.06804 [cs] , 2021a. arXiv: 2101.06804.
Pengfei Liu, Jinlan Fu, Yang Xiao, Weizhe Yuan, Shuaichen Chang, Junqi Dai, Yixin Liu, Zihuiwen Ye, and
Graham Neubig. ExplainaBoard: An Explainable Leaderboard for NLP. In IJCNLP , 2021b. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 93 | Graham Neubig. ExplainaBoard: An Explainable Leaderboard for NLP. In IJCNLP , 2021b.
Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. Pre-train,
Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2107.13586 , 2021c.
Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. Fantastically Ordered
Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity. In ACL, 2022.
Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In NeurIPS ,
2017.
Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Peter Clark, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. Think about
it! Improving Defeasible Reasoning by First Modeling the Question Scenario. In EMNLP , 2021.
Quinn McNemar. Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference between Correlated Proportions or Percentages. Psychometrika , 1947. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 94 | Quinn McNemar. Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference between Correlated Proportions or Percentages. Psychometrika , 1947.
Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? arXiv preprint
20
arXiv:2202.12837 , 2022.
Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Reframing Instructional Prompts to GPTk’s Language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07830 , 2021.
Ramaravind K Mothilal, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers Through
Diverse Counterfactual Explanations. In FAT, 2020.
Guoshun Nan, Jiaqi Zeng, Rui Qiao, Zhijiang Guo, and Wei Lu. Uncovering Main Causalities for Longtailed Information Extraction. In EMNLP , 2021.
Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 95 | Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber,
David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, Charles Sutton, and Augustus Odena.
Show your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2112.00114 , 2021.
Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang,
Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller,
Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training
Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155 , 2022.
Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. Are NLP Models Really Able to Solve Simple Math
Word Problems? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191 , 2021. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 96 | Word Problems? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191 , 2021.
Gabriel Poesia, Alex Polozov, Vu Le, Ashish Tiwari, Gustavo Soares, Christopher Meek, and Sumit Gulwani. Synchromesh: Reliable Code Generation from Pre-trained Language Models. In ICLR , 2021.
Rafael Poyiadzi, Kacper Sokol, Raul Santos-Rodriguez, Tijl De Bie, and Peter Flach. FACE: Feasible and
Actionable Counterfactual Explanations. In AAAI , 2020.
Danish Pruthi, Mansi Gupta, Bhuwan Dhingra, Graham Neubig, and Zachary C. Lipton. Learning to Deceive
with Attention-Based Explanations. In ACL, 2020.
Geoffrey K. Pullum. YODA’S Syntax the Tribune Analyzes; Supply more Details I Will! YODA’S Syntax
the Tribune Analyzes; Supply more Details I Will!, 2005. Accessed: 2022-08-15.
Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoning. In ACL, 2019. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 97 | Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV , Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Impact of Pretraining Term Frequencies on Few-shot Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206 , 2022.
Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. A Recipe for
Arbitrary Text Style Transfer with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03910 , 2021.
Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Fewshot Paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems , 2021.
Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the
Predictions of Any Classifier. In SIGKDD , 2016.
Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. Learning to Retrieve Prompts for In-context Learning.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633 , 2021.
Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 98 | Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine
Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish
Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin
Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma,
Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Tali Bers,
Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization, 2021.
Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 99 | Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher,
Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. The Neural Architecture of Language: Integrative Modeling Converges on Predictive Processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2021.
21
Vered Shwartz, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. Unsupervised Commonsense Question Answering with Self-Talk. In EMNLP , 2020.
Dylan Slack, Anna Hilgard, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Sameer Singh. Counterfactual Explanations can be
Manipulated. NeurIPS , 2021.
Ilia Stepin, Jose M Alonso, Alejandro Catala, and Martín Pereira-Fariña. A Survey of Contrastive and
Counterfactual Explanation Generation Methods for Explainable Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Access ,
2021.
Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. In ACL, 2019.
Kai Sun, Dian Yu, Dong Yu, and Claire Cardie. Improving Machine Reading Comprehension with General
Reading Strategies. In NAACL , 2019. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 100 | Kai Sun, Dian Yu, Dong Yu, and Claire Cardie. Improving Machine Reading Comprehension with General
Reading Strategies. In NAACL , 2019.
Yujin Tang and David Ha. The Sensory Neuron As a Transformer: Permutation-invariant Neural Networks
for Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS , 2021.
Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng,
Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, YaGuang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Amin
Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen,
Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching
Chang, Igor Krivokon, Will Rusch, Marc Pickett, Pranesh Srinivasan, Laichee Man, Kathleen MeierHellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Soraker, Ben
Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 101 | Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina,
Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravi Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, Viktoriya
Kuzmina, Joe Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Claire Cui,
Marian Croak, Ed Chi, and Quoc Le. LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2201.08239 , 2022.
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz
Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is All you Need. In NeurIPS , 2017.
Sahil Verma, John Dickerson, and Keegan Hines. Counterfactual Explanations for Machine Learning: A
Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10596 , 2020.
George Walkden. English VP-fronting and the Syntax of Yoda. talk given at LinguistMix , 2012. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 102 | George Walkden. English VP-fronting and the Syntax of Yoda. talk given at LinguistMix , 2012.
Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. Rationale-Augmented
Ensembles in Language Models. arXiv preprints arXiv:2207.00747 , 2022a.
Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. Self-Consistency Improves
Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , 2022b.
Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T Kwok, and Lionel M Ni. Generalizing from a few Examples: A
Survey on Few-shot Learning. ACM Computing Surveys , 2020.
Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. Finetuned Language Models are Zero-shot Learners. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2109.01652 , 2021.
Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 103 | Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain
of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903 ,
2022.
James CR Whittington, Joseph Warren, and Tim EJ Behrens. Relating Transformers to Models and Neural
Representations of the Hippocampal Formation. In ICLR , 2021.
Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. Attention is not not Explanation. In EMNLP-IJCNLP , 2019.
Wookieepedia. Yoda. Yoda, 2022. Accessed: 2022-08-15.
Yuhuai Wu, Albert Q Jiang, Wenda Li, Markus N Rabe, Charles Staats, Mateja Jamnik, and Christian
Szegedy. Autoformalization with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12615 , 2022.
Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. An Explanation of In-context Learning
as Implicit Bayesian Inference. In ICLR , 2021. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 104 | as Implicit Bayesian Inference. In ICLR , 2021.
Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans,
22
Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large
Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625 , 2022.
23
Appendix
Table of Contents
A Extended Background 25
A.1 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B Details on Studied Reasoning Tasks 26
C Computational Resources and Models 26
D Attention Analysis 26
D.1 Per-layer Attention Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D.2 Specialized Attention Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 105 | E Results on C ODEX , GPT-3, PaLM-540 Band Statistical Significance Test 33
E.1 Results on C ODEX , GPT-3, PaLM-540 B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
E.2 Significance tests for PaLM-62 B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
F Additional Experiments on Role of Symbols 38
F.1 Counterfactual Prompts for Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
F.2 Role of symbols: Output Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
F.3 Attention Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
F.4 Role of Dataset for Effective Chain of Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 106 | F.4 Role of Dataset for Effective Chain of Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
F.5 Additional Experiments for S PORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
G Additional Experiments on Role of Patterns in CoT 45
G.1 Output Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
H Additional Experiments on Role of Text 51
H.1 Text with Altered Grammatical Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
I Symbiosis between Text and Patterns: Additional Examples and Qualitative Analysis 61
I.1 Constructing Effective Intermediate Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
I.2 Commonsense Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 107 | I.3 Text and Patterns: It Takes Two to Tango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
J Additional Results CC OT: C oncise C hain O f Thought 63
J.1 CC OT Prompts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
J.2 Reduction in Length by CC OT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
K Complete List of Counterfactual Prompts 68
24
A. E XTENDED BACKGROUND
Background on chain of thought . This work broadly investigates the premise of in-context few-shot
prompting in large language models (LLM). In these methods, the input to the model is a prompt pconsisting ofkin-context examples in the form of xinputÞÑxi, outputÞÑyiytuples6. Eachxxi,yiyalludes
to the target task. For example, in math solving problems Cobbe et al. (2021), an input is math question ( If | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 108 | to the target task. For example, in math solving problems Cobbe et al. (2021), an input is math question ( If
three apples were added to a basket which had two apples, how many apples are in the basket now? ), and
the output supplies the answer ( 5). Wei et al. (2022) additionally supplement in-context few-shot prompting
with Chain Of Thought (COT) method, improving the performance of LLM in solving several reasoning
tasks. In particular, C OT additionally prefixes each output with a thought , creating triplets xxi,ti,yiy. The
“chain of thought” tidescribes the intermediate steps and/or results required to derive the output yifrom
xi. Therefore, the prompt is assembled in the form of pxx1t1y1y}xx2t2y2y}:::}xxktkyky,
where “” and “}” are indicator symbols. The role of is to separate elements of an example, whereas }
indicates the boundary of an example. The intuition behind chain of thought prompting is that catering the
outputs/answers with intermediate steps/results present additional in-context information to the model (Ling | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 109 | outputs/answers with intermediate steps/results present additional in-context information to the model (Ling
et al., 2017; Amini et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021b; Cobbe et al., 2021; Nye et al., 2021). This additional
in-context information presumably improves accuracy in solving various reasoning tasks.
At inference time, C OT appends an unseen question ^xto the prompt pand supplies the extended prompt
to a LLM. The model completes the prompt to generate a relevant thought ^tandan answer ^y. To assess
the performance of LLM, C OTonly compares the post-processed generated answer with the ground truth.
Gauging the correctness of the generated thought ^tis not straightforward because ground truth thoughts are
unavailable. Nonetheless, the generated thought can be further analyzed to infer the possible mechanisms,
allowing an analogy with the human thought process, with which the model attains the answer.
Background on counterfactual explanation. Counterfactual explanations seek to explain the behavior
of a model by conducting “ what if ” analysis on examples for which the expected outputs of the model is
known (Mothilal et al., 2020; Stepin et al., 2021; Verma et al., 2020; Poyiadzi et al., 2020; Goyal et al., | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 110 | known (Mothilal et al., 2020; Stepin et al., 2021; Verma et al., 2020; Poyiadzi et al., 2020; Goyal et al.,
2019; Feder et al., 2021). Specifically, let px;yqbe a tuple where xis the input to a model Mthat estimates
an output distribution pp |xq, andypp |xq. Counterfactual explanations utilize variants Cfpx;b;aq
of the inputs that differ from the original input xin all except one feature f. Here,bandadenote the
before and after values of the feature finx. For instance, consider an image xof a camel with a brown
background labeled correctly by a classifier. A counterfactual Cbgpx;brown;green qexample is an identical
image with only a different background color, green, in this example. By virtue of comparing pp|xqwith
pp|Cbgpx;brown;green qqfor a sufficiently large sample of images, one may infer certain facts about the
classifier, for example its reliance on the background color.
A.1. L IMITATIONS | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 111 | classifier, for example its reliance on the background color.
A.1. L IMITATIONS
While the counterfactual approach has its advantages, its assumptions induce limitations summarized below. There is potential for uncharted and baffling artifacts that the model could be exploiting, leading to
potentially misleading observations. For instance, symbols, patterns, text and the outcome may be spuriously correlated. A classic example of such spurious correlation is confounding: the phenomenon of an
observed correlation between X and Y induced by their common cause Z. Despite taking methodical and
scientific measures, to the best of our knowledge, to ground our hypothesis in in-depth empirical analysis,
the discrete and multiplicative nature of language understanding tasks implies that no such study can be
completely thorough. In addition, this work is limited to a subset of common tasks and datasets, including
math (Cobbe et al., 2021), commonsense reasoning (BIG-bench Collaboration, 2022), and symbolic reasoning. Our conclusions in this work may not apply to other reasoning and question-answering tasks, or even
6The number of xxi,yiytuples depend on the maximum input sequence length of the model, typically k¤10.
25
Table 9: Examples of “ what if ” questions that we seek to answer in this work. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 112 | 25
Table 9: Examples of “ what if ” questions that we seek to answer in this work.
Q1.What if we replace all the symbols in the prompt with abstract placeholders, can the required
task still be discerned?
Q2. What if the examples in the prompt were incorrect, will it affect the correctness of the
outputs?
Q3.What if we remove all patterns from the input, will C OT continue to be effective?
Q4. What if the linguistic style of the prompt was different than that of the questions, will it
hamper the performance?
to other datasets from the same task category. We experiment with large language models that are either
not publicly available (e.g., PaLM) or are either available using API calls. Existing documentation (Brown
et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021a) does not fully describe the details of these models, such as the pretraining
corpus, model size, and model biases.
B. D ETAILS ON STUDIED REASONING TASKS
In this work, we evaluate counterfactual prompting on the following reasoning tasks:
1.MATHEMATICAL We experiment with GSM-8 K(Cobbe et al., 2021) (1319 samples). The dataset
contains math word problems geared toward an average middle-school curriculum. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 113 | contains math word problems geared toward an average middle-school curriculum.
2.COMMONSENSE We use date understanding (D ATE, 349 samples) and sports understanding (S PORTS , 980 samples) as representative tasks for commonsense reasoning, both derived from BIGbench Collaboration (2022).
3.SYMBOLIC We experiment with sorting (S ORTING , 500 samples) a list of single-digit integers. We
do not associate explicit instruction (e.g., sort these numbers ) with the questions. Instead, we frame
the questions as a challenging setup in which the model should figure out the task and the requisite
information to solve it.
C. C OMPUTATIONAL RESOURCES AND MODELS
In this work, we neither train any of the PaLM models, nor performs finetuning. We solely perform inference
on PaLM variants using TPU v4 (Jouppi et al., 2021; 2017). For PaLM-62 B, we use 444 TPU v4
configuration, whereas, for PaLM-540 Bwe use 4416 mesh configuration. To account for the variation
in results caused by the order of examples in the prompt, we conduct each experiment three times, each with | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 114 | in results caused by the order of examples in the prompt, we conduct each experiment three times, each with
different seeds, and report the average task solve rate. Following Wei et al. (2022), we evaluate each task
using accuracy i.e. fraction of examples where the output matched the expected result.
Public large language models. We use OpenAI API7to conduct experiments with GPT-3 ( text-davinci002) and C ODEX (code-davinci-002 ).
D. A TTENTION ANALYSIS
Attention mechanism (Vaswani et al., 2017) is now ubiquitous in NLP. While the broader question on the
utility of attention for posthoc analysis is still open (Jain & Wallace, 2019; Pruthi et al., 2020), there is some
evidence to show that attention can act as an explanation (Wiegreffe & Pinter, 2019). Finally, the utility of
7https://openai.com/blog/openai-api/, v0.23.0
26
Table 10: Examples of tasks used in this work. The åQÞÑques tion, TÞÑthought, and VAÞÑ
answer are separately highlighted. For the complete list of vanilla C OT for each category refer to Table 38, Table 40, Table 39, and Table 41, respectively. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 115 | answer are separately highlighted. For the complete list of vanilla C OT for each category refer to Table 38, Table 40, Table 39, and Table 41, respectively.
MATHEMATICAL
åQÞÑShawn hasfivetoys. ForChrist mas, hegottwotoys each from hismom anddad. How many toys
does hehave now?
TÞÑShawn started with 5toys. Ifhegot2toys each from hismom anddad, then thatis4more toys. 5
+4=9.
VAÞÑTheanswer is9.
COMMONSENSE (SPORTS )
åQÞÑIsthefollowingsentence plausible? “JamalMurraywasperfectfrom theline.”
TÞÑJamalMurrayisabasketballplayer. Beingperfectfrom thelineispartofbasketball.
VAÞÑTheanswer isyes.
COMMONSENSE (DATE)
åQÞÑItis4/19/1969 today. What isthedate 24hours later inMM/D D/YYYY?
TÞÑTodayis04/19/1969. 24hours later isonedayaftertoday, which would be04/20/1969. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 116 | TÞÑTodayis04/19/1969. 24hours later isonedayaftertoday, which would be04/20/1969.
VAÞÑTheanswer is04/20/1969.
SYMBOLIC (SORTING )
åQÞÑ2,4,3,8,9,6,7,1.
TÞÑ1<2<3<4<5<6<7<8<9.
VAÞÑTheanswer is1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
any explanation mechanism is closely tied to the users and application domain (Kaur et al., 2020; Burkart
& Huber, 2021), and as our analysis shows, attention provides concurring evidence that adds intuition and
insights to the empirical findings of this work. Note that while we conduct empirical experiments with
PaLM, GPT-3, and C ODEX , we only conduct attention-related ablations with PaLM as the GPT-3 and
CODEX were only available to us via API.
Attention for autoregressive models. Consider a sentence: my dog loved the toy . Modern NLP methods
divide each sentence into tokens, a decision dictated by the underlying tokenization library. PaLM uses | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 117 | divide each sentence into tokens, a decision dictated by the underlying tokenization library. PaLM uses
SentencePiece (Kudo & Richardson, 2018) for tokenization. For simplicity, we assume a tokenizer that
divides the sentence into tokens based on the whitespace. This yields the following list of tokens: [my, dog,
loves, treats].
Let BOS be a special beginning of sequence token present in all sentences, and pbe a language model with
the parameters . Decoder-only language models such as PaLM estimate the likelihood of a sequence such
asmy dog loved the toy using an autoregressive factorization popularly known as the chain-rule:
ppBOS;my;dog;loves;treats qppmy|BOSqppdog|BOS;myqpploves|BOS;my;dogq
pptreats|BOS;my;dog;loves q
Estimating these conditional probabilities (e.g., ppmy|BOSq) requires a stack of transformer layers, each
containing an attention module. Thus, this factorization also implies that tokens attend to the left (Figure 4),
with a token wiat locationiattending to all tokens w i. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 118 | containing an attention module. Thus, this factorization also implies that tokens attend to the left (Figure 4),
with a token wiat locationiattending to all tokens w i.
Letwsbe the source token (current input to the model). The set of target tokens, or tokens that wswill attend
to, thus are: w0;w1;:::;ws1. PaLM-62 Bhas 64 layers, each containing the self-attention mechanism
27
Q1 T1 A1 Q2 T2 A2 Q’T’ A ’Figure 3: Structure of a typical chain of thought prompt. The prompt contains a handful of QTA examples, each containing three parts: 1) The question (Q), the thought (T) that spells out the reasoning
process to derive the answer, and finally, 3) Answer (A) the final answer. In the Figure, the prompt
contains two such QTA examples. During inference, a test question Q’ is appended to the prompt,
and the model is expected to complete it by generating a thought T’ and the answer A’, presumably
leveraging the two QTA examples in the input.
with 32 heads. Focusing on a single layer and head, let astbe the attention score from wstowt, where°s1 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 119 | with 32 heads. Focusing on a single layer and head, let astbe the attention score from wstowt, where°s1
t0ast1.
Analyzing the important components of a C OT prompt. We leverage attention scores as an additional
signal to help uncover the important components of a prompt. To this end, we calculate the attention scores
from thesource tokens that are part of the Q’,T’, orA’tothetarget prompt question Qi, thought Ti, and
answer Ai(Figure 3). Note that the same prompt is used for all the questions in the test set. Thus across
questions, the set of target tokens remains the same.
Our goal in attention analysis is to uncover important tokens and spans used by PaLM to solve a task. Since
the distribution of attention scores asis typically long-tailed, recording the attention score between every
pair of source-target tokens might lead to noise and spurious patterns (Nan et al., 2021). To remedy this,
we take inspiration from nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) and set all values below the kthlargest
attention value to 0 (we use k10).
LetQ1
jbe thejthquestion in the test set Qof the questions to be evaluated. Recall that the same prompt | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 120 | attention value to 0 (we use k10).
LetQ1
jbe thejthquestion in the test set Qof the questions to be evaluated. Recall that the same prompt
is used for all the questions, and we calculate the attention scores from the source tokens (tokens in the
inference question) to the target tokens (those in the prompt). Let astbe the attention from token wstowt.
We calculate the attention importance Itof a tokenwtin the prompt as the average max attention it has
received across the set Qof inference questions.
It°|Q|
j1max|Q1
j| |A1
j| |T1
j|
s1ast
|Q|(1)
1. The spectrum plots show a comparison of Itfor all tokens in the prompt for two different prompts:
vanilla C OT prompt and Csymb_absppqprompt.
2. The pattern vs. text prompts group the target tokens by their type: the tokens that belong to a pattern
vs. tokens belonging to the text. The attention importance values are then shown.
3. The bos by layer plots investigate the total attention importance for the BOS token.
D.1. P ER-LAYER ATTENTION ANALYSIS | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 121 | 3. The bos by layer plots investigate the total attention importance for the BOS token.
D.1. P ER-LAYER ATTENTION ANALYSIS
The main draft provides spectrum plots averaged over heads and layers. Figure 11 shows the same question
for three different datasets averaged across layers. Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 provide the same plots,
per layer. We find that the spectrum of Isvalues is identical between C OT(p) andCsymb_absppqacross layers,
showing that averaging is not leading to spurious correlations.
28
BOS My dog loves treats
Figure 4: Auto-regressive language models: the tokens are generated as a sequence, with each token
attending to the preceding tokens.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(a) Layer 0pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(b) Layer 15 pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(c) Layer 31 pvs.Csymb_absppq | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 122 | 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(c) Layer 31 pvs.Csymb_absppq
Figure 5: Average attention per token for a randomly sampled question using standard C OT promptp
(above) and Csymb_absppqfor GSM-8 Kacross layers. Near identical attention pattern shows that few-shot
models are relatively indifferent to the exact symbols, but are sensitive to patterns.
D.2. S PECIALIZED ATTENTION HEADS
Fine-tuned models can be expected to learn attention patterns that facilitate solving a task. Does the same
hold for few-shot models? To our knowledge, the question of attention in a few-shot setup has not been
explored. Surprisingly, we find that the model consistently uses certain heads and layers for attending over
certain semantic parts of the inputs. We find such specialized head-layer pairs manually, and plot the average
Itfor 100 questions for them in Figure 9. The Itvalues show a clear tendency for the head to favor either
past tense ( would, yesterday ) or future tense ( will). Analyzing a large-language model’s attention patterns in
detail is an interesting future work. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 123 | past tense ( would, yesterday ) or future tense ( will). Analyzing a large-language model’s attention patterns in
detail is an interesting future work.
Symbiosis in attention scores We have explored different semantic components of prompts, namely patterns (including symbols) and text. A logical next question is whether patterns or text confer differential
importance. While importance can be measured via various approaches, we use attention scores as a reasonable proxy. For GSM-8 K(where the distinction between patterns and text is clear), we calculate attention
mass on patterns and text across several layers and average it over their attention heads. Figure 11 compares
29
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8(a) Layer 0pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(b) Layer 15 pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(c) Layer 31 pvs.Csymb_absppq
Figure 6: Average attention per token for a randomly sampled question using standard C OT prompt | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 124 | (c) Layer 31 pvs.Csymb_absppq
Figure 6: Average attention per token for a randomly sampled question using standard C OT prompt
p(above) and Csymb_absppqfor D ATEacross layers. Near identical attention pattern shows that few-shot
models are relatively indifferent to the exact symbols, but are sensitive to patterns.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(a) Layer 0pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(b) Layer 15 pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(c) Layer 31 pvs.Csymb_absppq
Figure 7: Average attention per token for a randomly sampled question using standard C OT promptp
(above) and Csymb_absppqfor S PORTS across layers. Near identical attention pattern shows that few-shot
models are relatively indifferent to the exact symbols, but are sensitive to patterns. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 125 | models are relatively indifferent to the exact symbols, but are sensitive to patterns.
these average scores, normalized between patterns and text. Our findings show that the model pays approximately equal attention to both, indicating similar importance. These results concur with our findings that
text and patterns contribute equally to the success of C OT.
30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8(a) Layer 0pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(b) Layer 15 pvs.Csymb_absppq
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
(c) Layer 31 pvs.Csymb_absppq
Figure 8: Average attention per token for a randomly sampled question using standard C OT promptp
(above) and Csymb_absppqfor S ORTING across layers. Near identical attention pattern shows that few-shot
models are relatively indifferent to the exact symbols, but are sensitive to patterns.
Q
:
2
0
1
5
is
coming | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 126 | Q
:
2
0
1
5
is
coming
in
3
6
hours
.
What
is
the
date
one
week
from
today
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
If
2
0
1
5
is
coming
in
3
6
hours
,
then
it
is
coming
in
2
days
.
2
days
before
0
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
is
1
2
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
,
so | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 127 | /
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
,
so
today
is
1
2
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
.
So
one
week
from
today
will
be
0
1
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
5
.
So
the
answer
is
0
1
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
5
.
Q
:
The
first
day
of
2
0
1
9
is
a
Tuesday
,
and
today
is
the
first
Monday | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 128 | 9
is
a
Tuesday
,
and
today
is
the
first
Monday
of
2
0
1
9
.
What
is
the
date
today
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
If
the
first
day
of
2
0
1
9
was
Tuesday
,
then
0
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
was
a
Tuesday
.
Today
is
the
first
monday
,
would
be
six
days
later
.
So
today
is
0
1
/ | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 129 | six
days
later
.
So
today
is
0
1
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
9
.
So
the
answer
is
0
1
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
9
.
Q
:
The
concert
was
scheduled
to
be
on
0
6
/
0
1
/
1
9
4
3
,
but
was
delayed
by
one
day
to
today
.
What
is
the
date
1
0
days
ago
in
MM
/
DD
/ | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 130 | date
1
0
days
ago
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
One
day
after
0
6
/
0
1
/
1
9
4
3
is
0
6
/
0
2
/
1
9
4
3
,
so
today
is
0
6
/
0
2
/
1
9
4
3
.
1
0
days
before
today
is
0
5
/
2
3
/
1
9
4
3
.
So
the
answer
is
0
5 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 131 | 9
4
3
.
So
the
answer
is
0
5
/
2
3
/
1
9
4
3
.
Q
:
It
is
4
/
1
9
/
1
9
6
9
today
.
What
is
the
date
2
4
hours
later
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
Today
is
0
4
/
1
9
/
1
9
6
9
.
2
4
hours
later
is
one
day
after
today
,
which
would | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 132 | hours
later
is
one
day
after
today
,
which
would
be
0
4
/
2
0
/
1
9
6
9
.
So
the
answer
is
0
4
/
2
0
/
1
9
6
9
.
Q
:
Jane
thought
today
is
3
/
1
1
/
2
0
0
2
,
but
today
is
in
fact
Mar
1
2
,
which
is
1
day
later
.
What
is
the
date
2
4
hours
later | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 133 | day
later
.
What
is
the
date
2
4
hours
later
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
Today
is
0
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
2
.
So
the
date
2
4
hours
later
will
be
0
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
2
.
So
the
answer
is
0
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
2
.
Q
:
Jane
was
born
on
the
last | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 134 | 2
.
Q
:
Jane
was
born
on
the
last
day
of
Feb
ur
ary
in
2
0
0
1
.
Today
is
her
1
6
year
old
birthday
.
What
is
the
date
yesterday
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
The
last
day
of
February
is
the
2
8
th
,
so
Jane
was
born
on
0
2
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
1
.
Today
is
her
1 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 135 | /
2
0
0
1
.
Today
is
her
1
6
year
old
birthday
,
so
today
is
0
2
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
7
.
So
yesterday
was
0
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
.
So
the
answer
is
0
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
.
(a) Layer 45, Head 16 specializes in capturing tokens relevant to “past tense”.
Q
:
2
0
1
5
is
coming
in
3
6 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 136 | :
2
0
1
5
is
coming
in
3
6
hours
.
What
is
the
date
one
week
from
today
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
If
2
0
1
5
is
coming
in
3
6
hours
,
then
it
is
coming
in
2
days
.
2
days
before
0
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
is
1
2
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
,
so
today | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 137 | 3
0
/
2
0
2
1
,
so
today
is
1
2
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
.
So
one
week
from
today
will
be
0
1
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
5
.
So
the
answer
is
0
1
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
5
.
Q
:
The
first
day
of
2
0
1
9
is
a
Tuesday
,
and
today
is
the
first
Monday
of | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 138 | is
a
Tuesday
,
and
today
is
the
first
Monday
of
2
0
1
9
.
What
is
the
date
today
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
If
the
first
day
of
2
0
1
9
was
Tuesday
,
then
0
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
was
a
Tuesday
.
Today
is
the
first
monday
,
would
be
six
days
later
.
So
today
is
0
1
/
0 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 139 | days
later
.
So
today
is
0
1
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
9
.
So
the
answer
is
0
1
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
9
.
Q
:
The
concert
was
scheduled
to
be
on
0
6
/
0
1
/
1
9
4
3
,
but
was
delayed
by
one
day
to
today
.
What
is
the
date
1
0
days
ago
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 140 | 1
0
days
ago
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
One
day
after
0
6
/
0
1
/
1
9
4
3
is
0
6
/
0
2
/
1
9
4
3
,
so
today
is
0
6
/
0
2
/
1
9
4
3
.
1
0
days
before
today
is
0
5
/
2
3
/
1
9
4
3
.
So
the
answer
is
0
5 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 141 | 9
4
3
.
So
the
answer
is
0
5
/
2
3
/
1
9
4
3
.
Q
:
It
is
4
/
1
9
/
1
9
6
9
today
.
What
is
the
date
2
4
hours
later
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
Today
is
0
4
/
1
9
/
1
9
6
9
.
2
4
hours
later
is
one
day
after
today
,
which
would | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 142 | hours
later
is
one
day
after
today
,
which
would
be
0
4
/
2
0
/
1
9
6
9
.
So
the
answer
is
0
4
/
2
0
/
1
9
6
9
.
Q
:
Jane
thought
today
is
3
/
1
1
/
2
0
0
2
,
but
today
is
in
fact
Mar
1
2
,
which
is
1
day
later
.
What
is
the
date
2
4
hours
later | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 143 | later
.
What
is
the
date
2
4
hours
later
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
Today
is
0
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
2
.
So
the
date
2
4
hours
later
will
be
0
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
2
.
So
the
answer
is
0
3
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
2
.
Q
:
Jane
was
born
on
the
last
day | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 144 | .
Q
:
Jane
was
born
on
the
last
day
of
Feb
ur
ary
in
2
0
0
1
.
Today
is
her
1
6
year
old
birthday
.
What
is
the
date
yesterday
in
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
?
A
:
The
last
day
of
February
is
the
2
8
th
,
so
Jane
was
born
on
0
2
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
1
.
Today
is
her
1 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 145 | /
2
0
0
1
.
Today
is
her
1
6
year
old
birthday
,
so
today
is
0
2
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
7
.
So
yesterday
was
0
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
.
So
the
answer
is
0
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
.
(b) Layer 45, Head 18 specializes in capturing tokens relevant to “future tense”.
Figure 9: Specialized attention heads.
31
0 7 15 23 31 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 146 | .
(b) Layer 45, Head 18 specializes in capturing tokens relevant to “future tense”.
Figure 9: Specialized attention heads.
31
0 7 15 23 31
Attention Layers0.00.10.20.30.40.50.6Normalized Attention MassFigure 10: Attention on the beginning of sequence token across layers. Averaged across attention
heads, higher attention mass goes to the bos token for the higher layers. Note that PaLM is autoregressive, thus, higher attention mass on bos may be interpreted as the model paying equal attention
to the rest of the sequence, indicating an evolving global representation. | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 147 | to the rest of the sequence, indicating an evolving global representation.
Figure 15-aPatternTextC/A00.563401310.436598691.2904328915874770.573124230.426875771.34260192374001150.561564260.438435741.28083595557242230.465478190.534521810.870831051776914310.642734620.357265381.7990397502271300.583253250.416746751.3995388086409870.586447510.413552491.41807273364501150.571411530.428588471.33324055591136230.452980080.547019920.828086991786332310.645248270.354751731.818872793093920.000.200.400.600.801.00
PatternTextNormalized Fraction of Attention MassCoTCoT-SymbolicLayer 0Layer 7Layer 15Layer 23Layer 31Layer 0Layer 7Layer 15Layer 23Layer 31
Figure 11: Visualizing the normalized fraction of attention mass between text and patterns across | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 148 | Figure 11: Visualizing the normalized fraction of attention mass between text and patterns across
multiple layers of the PaLM-62 Bmodel layers with the vanilla C OT (left-side) and symbolic C OT (rightside). In general, patterns receive slightly higher attention across most of the layers, with the topmost
layer paying the largest attention. Strikingly, the attention patterns closely match for vanilla and
symbolic C OT, implying that few-shot models leverage patterns to a larger extent.
32
E. R ESULTS ON CODEX , GPT-3, P ALM-540 B AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
TEST
E.1. R ESULTS ON CODEX , GPT-3, P ALM-540 B
We show results from four models: C ODEX (Chen et al., 2021a), GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), and two
variants of PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) (PaLM-62 Band PaLM-540 B). Note that we could not get
results on all variations of prompts for GPT-3 because of usage limits by OpenAI. Such cases are indicated
with a hyphen (-). Similarly, due to the rate limitations, we experimented with two seeds for all variations | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 149 | with a hyphen (-). Similarly, due to the rate limitations, we experimented with two seeds for all variations
on C ODEX and had to use a single seed for some variations. The findings are shown in Table 11 (GSM-8 K),
Table 12 (D ATE), Table 13 (S PORTS ), and Table 14 (S ORTING ). We find that all the findings hold across
models: correctness of patterns is immaterial, abstract and OOD symbols are still helpful, and the sensitivity
to text is proportional to the degree of randomness. Finally, CC OT matches or outperforms C OT despite
being 20% shorter.
Table 11: All results for GSM-8 Kacross four models: C ODEX , GPT-3, PaLM-62 B, and PaLM-540 B.
CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD
DIRECT 20.8% 1.1 16.1 % 0 10.1 % 0.3 9.6 % 3.2
COT(p) (Table 38) 65.6% 3 46.9 % 6.2 27.4 % 1.1 60.8 % 0.6 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 150 | COT(p) (Table 38) 65.6% 3 46.9 % 6.2 27.4 % 1.1 60.8 % 0.6
CCOT 62.5 % 1.4 52.2 % 1.4 29.1 % 063.2% 1.1
Csymb_oodppq(Table 48) 66.2% 0.5 55.3 % 1.7 25.7 % 0.5 60.7 % 0.2
Csymb_absppq(Table 43) 56.5 % 6.4 49.4 % 0.1 28.2 % 0.2 59.0% 0.3
Cpat_wrongppq(Table 55) 65.5% 0.3 52.4 % 1.6 24.4 % 0.3 63.5 % 0.7
Cpat_noneppq(Table 57) 33.3 % 0.8 37.8 % 2.9 21.5 % 0.6 53.9% 1.5
Ctext_yodathoughtsppq(Table 70) 60.8% 0 - - 23.2 % 1 57.4 % 1.4
Ctext_intra_shufppq(Table 79) 33.0 % 1.8 - - 17.0 % 1.3 45.6% 3.8 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 151 | Ctext_intra_shufppq(Table 79) 33.0 % 1.8 - - 17.0 % 1.3 45.6% 3.8
Ctext_inter_shufppq(Table 82) 29.7 % 6.3 - - 10.8 % 1.3 37.2% 3.1
Ctext_diff_entities ppq(Table 68) 59.0% 0 49.8 % 0 16.6 % 1 51.1 % 3.3
Table 12: Results for D ATEacross four models: C ODEX , GPT-3, PaLM-62 B, and PaLM-540 B.
CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 152 | CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD
DIRECT 51.3% 1 44.2 % 0.5 31.6 % 1.6 49.0 % COT(p) (Table 39) 69.2% 2 56.7 % 3.7 45.2 % 0.5 65.3 % CCOT 69.9% 5.7 61.2 % 1.4 51.3 % - 69.6 % Csymb_oodppq(Table 49) 67.8% 1.8 58.2 % 0 44.5 % 1.4 59.6 % Csymb_absppq(Table 42) 54.1 % 3.9 35 % 2 36.6 % 156.2% 0.8
Cpat_wrongppq(Table 54) 69.0% 1.9 58.4 % 1.6 42.9 % 3 67.2 % 0.6
Cpat_noneppq(Table 62) 62.0% 1.4 50.9 % 3.1 36.1 % 1.2 59.6 % 2
Ctext_yodathoughtsppq(Table 72) 55.0 % 2 - - 30.8 % 1.7 62.2% 1.6 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 153 | Ctext_yodathoughtsppq(Table 72) 55.0 % 2 - - 30.8 % 1.7 62.2% 1.6
Ctext_intra_shufppq(Table 81) 44.3 % 3.9 - - 25.5 % 0.7 54.7% 0.4
Ctext_inter_shufppq(Table 84) 39.0 % 2.4 - - 24.2 % 0.8 44.4% 2
33
Table 13: All results for S PORTS across four models: C ODEX , GPT-3, PaLM-62 B, and PaLM-540 B.
CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 154 | CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD
DIRECT 70.2% 3.6 68.9 % 1 71.1 % 280.5% COT(p) (Table 40) 98.3% 0.1 82.1 % 2.2 93.6 % 0.3 95.4 % CCOT 98.5% 0.1 85.3 % 0.5 94.6 % 0 97.4 % Csymb_oodppq(Table 50) 79.7% 1.8 69.9 % 0 79.3 % 0.3 79.2 % Csymb_abs_perppq(Table 45) 86.7% 1.6 72.8 % 1.2 85.9 % 0.4 - Cpat_wrongppq(Table 64) 53.5 % 0.1 66.2% 2.9 53.7 % 0.6 53.7 % 0.6
Cpat_noneppq(Table 63) 78.3 % 1.8 71.2 % 0.6 79.2 % 6.6 85.8% 4.9
Ctext_diff_entities ppq(Table 69) 81.6% 13.9 66.9 % 0.1 66.9 % 2 54.5 % 0 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 155 | Ctext_diff_entities ppq(Table 69) 81.6% 13.9 66.9 % 0.1 66.9 % 2 54.5 % 0
Ctext_yodathoughtsppq(Table 71) 93.7% 1.3 - - 65.8 % 5.7 82.2 % 0.9
Ctext_intra_shufppq(Table 80) 70.1% 0 - - 61.2 % 4.6 69.8 % 0
Ctext_inter_shufppq(Table 83) 66.8 % 2.1 - - 61.7 % 270.0% 0
Table 14: All results for S ORTING across four models: C ODEX , GPT-3, PaLM-62 B, and PaLM-540 B.
CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 156 | CODEX GPT-3 PaLM-62 B PaLM-540 B
Prompt Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD
DIRECT 100% - 50 % - 46.87 % 2.288 99.8 % COT(p) (Table 41) 100% - 50 % - 61.87 % 3.151 99.8 % Csymb_oodppq(Table 51) 100% - 50 % - 57.2 % 3.441 99 % Csymb_absppq(Table 44) 100% - 50 % - 81.47 % 10.804 91.4 % Cpat_wrongppq(Table 65) 99.9% 0.1 50 % - 61.47 % 4.014 99.0 % Cpat_noneppq(Table 61) 45.2 % 4 24.6 % - 79.27 % 9.116 84.2% 34
E.2. S IGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR PALM-62 B
In this section, we present detailed results for experiments on PaLM-62 B. Each experiment was repeated
thrice using three different values of the random seed. We use McNemar’s test (McNemar, 1947) to calculate
the statistical significance of differences in the performance of a given Counterfactual prompt with C OT(p), | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 157 | the statistical significance of differences in the performance of a given Counterfactual prompt with C OT(p),
and Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1960) to measure the degree of agreement between the outputs generated by a
counterfactual prompt and C OT(p).
Table 15: All results for GSM-8 K: p-values calculated using McNemar’s test for various counterfactual prompts used in GSM-8 Kexperiments. The p-value corresponds to the null hypothesis: The
marginal probability of a sample being correct with the counterfactual prompt and COTis same . The
p-values can roughly be interpreted as the likelihood of the two setups being identical in outcome.
Larger p-values (p>0.01) indicate that the null hypothesis should not be rejected. Cohen’s measures
agreement between the decisions of C OT and the counterfactual prompt. An agreement of over 0.4 is
moderate, and over 0.6 is substantial.
Solve Rate
Prompt S0 S1 S2 Avg. SD Mcnemar’s p-value Cohen’s
DIRECT 10.08% 10.54% 9.70% 10.11% 0.341 0.00001 0.0956 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 158 | DIRECT 10.08% 10.54% 9.70% 10.11% 0.341 0.00001 0.0956
COT(p) (Table 38) 28.81 % 26.16% 27.14% 27.37% 1.095 — —
Csymb_absppq(Table 43) 25.70 % 25.09% 26.31% 25.70% 0.495 0.320693 0.4846
Csymb_oodppq(Table 48) 28.28 % 28.43% 27.90% 28.20% 0.223 0.393705 0.6655
Csymb_ood_verbalized ppq(Table 87 24.03 % 22.74% 24.11% 23.63% 0.626 0.005653 0.5193
Csymb_ood_negppq(Table 52) 28.43 % 26.16% 26.16% 26.91% 1.072 0.702915 0.6762
Csymb_ood_largeppq(Table 53) 28.58 % 26.38% 26.99% 27.32% 0.927 0.900833 0.6513 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 159 | Cpat_onlyppq(Table 48 10.46 % 9.48% 10.08% 10.01% 0.406 0.00001 0.1935
Cpat_wrongppq(Table 55) 24.26 % 24.11% 24.79% 24.39% 0.293 0.040501 0.5849
Cpat_noneppq(Table 57) 22.37 % 21.08% 20.92% 21.46% 0.646 0.000018 0.4404
Ctext_diff_entities ppq(Table 68) 17.13 % 17.44% 15.24% 16.60% 0.973 0.00001 0.3725
Ctext_randppq(Table 76) 2.88 % 2.81% 3.26% 2.98% 0.199 0.00001 0.0153
Ctext_yodappq(Table 73) 24.03 % 21.08% 21.46% 22.19% 1.314 0.000147 0.4056
Ctext_yodathoughtsppq(Table 70) 24.18 % 21.68% 23.81% 23.22% 1.101 0.005890 0.3859 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 160 | Ctext_yodaquestions ppq(Table 85) 28.35 % 26.08% 26.84% 27.09% 0.946 0.847928 0.6394
Ctext_intra_shufppq(Table 79) 18.20 % 15.24% 17.59% 17.01% 1.275 0.00001 0.3343
Ctext_inter_shufppq(Table 82) 12.13 % 9.10% 11.30% 10.84% 1.279 0.00001 0.2308
35
Table 16: All results for D ATE: p-values calculated using McNemar’s test for various counterfactual
prompts used in D ATEexperiments. The p-value corresponds to the null hypothesis: The marginal
probability of a sample being correct with the counterfactual prompt and COTis same . Larger pvalues indicates that likelihood that the null hypothesis is correct is large. Cohen’s measures the
degree of agreement between the decisions of C OT and the counterfactual prompt. An agreement of
over 0.4 is moderate, and over 0.6 is substantial.
Solve Rate
Prompt S0 S1 S2 Avg. SD Mcnemar’s p-value Cohen’s | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 161 | Solve Rate
Prompt S0 S1 S2 Avg. SD Mcnemar’s p-value Cohen’s
DIRECT 29.51% 32.09% 33.24% 31.61% 1.558 0.000002 0.4888
COT(p) (Table 39 44.70 % 44.99% 45.85% 45.18% 0.487 — —
Csymb_absppq(Table 42) 37.54 % 36.96% 35.24% 36.58% 0.974 0.001335 0.5844
Csymb_oodppq(Table 49) 42.69 % 46.13% 44.70% 44.51% 1.410 0.520219 0.7895
Cpat_onlyppq(Table 49) 33.52 % 32.38% 33.52% 33.14% 0.540 0.000001 0.5931
Cpat_wrongppq(Table 54) 38.68 % 45.56% 44.41% 42.88% 3.008 0.433173 0.8060
Cpat_noneppq(Table 62) 37.54 % 36.10% 34.67% 36.10% 1.170 0.000263 0.6212 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |
2209.07686 | 162 | Cpat_noneppq(Table 62) 37.54 % 36.10% 34.67% 36.10% 1.170 0.000263 0.6212
Ctext_randppq(Table 78) 21.78 % 28.37% 18.05% 22.73% 4.265 0.00001 0.4094
Ctext_yodathoughtsppq(Table 72) 28.94 % 32.95% 30.37% 30.75% 1.660 0.000004 0.4426
Ctext_yodappq(Table 75) 34.10 % 32.09% 33.24% 33.14% 0.822 0.000010 0.5023
Ctext_yodaquestions ppq(Table 75) 44.13 % 48.14% 42.12% 44.79% 2.502 0.358008 0.7609
Ctext_intra_shufppq(Table 81) 26.36 % 25.50% 24.64% 25.50% 0.702 0.00001 0.4428
Ctext_inter_shufppq(Table 84) 25.21 % 23.78% 23.50% 24.16% 0.752 0.00001 0.4332 | 2209.07686 | Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tango | The past decade has witnessed dramatic gains in natural language processing
and an unprecedented scaling of large language models. These developments have
been accelerated by the advent of few-shot techniques such as chain of thought
(CoT) prompting. Specifically, CoT pushes the performance of large language
models in a few-shot setup by augmenting the prompts with intermediate steps.
Despite impressive results across various tasks, the reasons behind their
success have not been explored. This work uses counterfactual prompting to
develop a deeper understanding of CoT-based few-shot prompting mechanisms in
large language models. We first systematically identify and define the key
components of a prompt: symbols, patterns, and text. Then, we devise and
conduct an exhaustive set of experiments across four different tasks, by
querying the model with counterfactual prompts where only one of these
components is altered. Our experiments across three models (PaLM, GPT-3, and
CODEX) reveal several surprising findings and brings into question the
conventional wisdom around few-shot prompting. First, the presence of factual
patterns in a prompt is practically immaterial to the success of CoT. Second,
our results conclude that the primary role of intermediate steps may not be to
facilitate learning how to solve a task. The intermediate steps are rather a
beacon for the model to realize what symbols to replicate in the output to form
a factual answer. Further, text imbues patterns with commonsense knowledge and
meaning. Our empirical and qualitative analysis reveals that a symbiotic
relationship between text and patterns explains the success of few-shot
prompting: text helps extract commonsense from the question to help patterns,
and patterns enforce task understanding and direct text generation. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07686 | [
"Aman Madaan",
"Amir Yazdanbakhsh"
] | [
"cs.CL",
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
] | Shortened version with additional results from CODEX and GPT-3. The
authors contributed equally. Work done when Aman Madaan was a student
researcher at Google Research, Brain Team | null | cs.CL | 20220916 | 20221013 | [
{
"id": "2202.07206"
},
{
"id": "2109.03910"
},
{
"id": "2201.08239"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2204.01691"
},
{
"id": "2107.13586"
},
{
"id": "2109.01652"
},
{
"id": "2103.07191"
},
{
"id": "2109.07830"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2203.11171"
},
{
"id": "2206.14576"
},
{
"id": "2206.14858"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2207.00747"
},
{
"id": "2109.00725"
},
{
"id": "2203.07814"
},
{
"id": "2102.01672"
},
{
"id": "2205.12685"
},
{
"id": "2110.14168"
},
{
"id": "2101.06804"
},
{
"id": "2112.00114"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "1705.04146"
},
{
"id": "2205.12615"
},
{
"id": "2112.08633"
},
{
"id": "2209.07686"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2010.10596"
},
{
"id": "2202.12837"
},
{
"id": "2205.10625"
},
{
"id": "2205.11916"
}
] |