Bdeo

bdeo

There’s No TensorFlow Without Tensors

Не існуе TensorFlow без тенсараў

No hay TensorFlow sin Tensores

Non hai TensorFlow sen sensores

Non c’è TensorFlow senza Tensori

「TensorFlow Without Tensors」

Nėra „TensorFlow“ be jutiklių

TensorFlow ямар ч сенсоргүй

Nu există TensorFlow fără tensiuni

Нет TensorFlow без датчиков

TensorFlow waxaa laga yaqaan TensorFlow.

TensorFlow o‘z o‘z o‘z o‘z o‘z o‘z o‘z

Akukho TensorFlow ngaphandle Tensors

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis We conduct a qualitative analysis by comparing the outputs of our approach (THINKAND-EXECUTE) with those of the baseline methods. This comparison is presented across Tables7,8,9,10,11,12, and 13. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Conducting a Qualitative Analysis by Comparing the Outputs of Our Think-and-Execute Framework

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F.1 Generated P of Dyck Languages F.2 Generated P of Geometric Shapes F.3 Generated P of Navigate F.4 Generated P for Reasoning about Colored Objects F.5 Generated P of Temporal Sequences F.6 Generated P of Tracking Shuffled Objectives F.7 Generated P of Web of Lies This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Generated Pseudocode Prompts During Our Think-And-Execute Experiment

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis E Generated Analyses E.1 Generated Analysis of Dyck Languages E.2 Generated Analysis of Geometric Shapes E.3 Generated Analysis of Navigate E.4 Generated Analysis for Reasoning about Colored Objects E.5 Generated Analysis of Temporal Sequences E.6 Generated Analysis of Tracking Shuffled Objectives E.7 Generated Analysis of Web of Lies This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Generated Analyses: Dyck Languages, Geometric Shapes, and More

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D.1 Human-written P of Dyck Languages D.2 Human-written P of Geometric Shapes D.3 Human-written P of Navigate D.4 Human-written P of Reasoning about Colored Objects D.5 Human-written P of Temporal Sequences D.6 Human-written P of Tracking Shuffled Objectives D.7 Human-written P of Web of Lies This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Examples of Human-Written Pseudocode Prompts

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C.1 Meta Prompt for generating an analysis (THINK: Step 2). C.2 Meta Prompt for pseudocode prompt genration (THINK: Step 3). C.3 Prompt for NL Planning C.4 Prompt for EXECUTE phase C.5 Prompt for evaluating Direct Prompting C.6 Prompt for evaluating Zero-shot CoT C.7 Prompt for evaluating Zero-shot PoT C.8 Prompt for evaluating Plan-and-Solve This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

The Prompts We Used in Our Experiments

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis B Details of THINK-AND-EXECUTE B.1 Human-annotation on the Tasks in the Task Pool Please see Appendix D for human-written pseudocode prompts. B.2 Components of a Pseudocode Prompt We highlight some components of code prompt that would be helpful in describing the underlying reasoning logic. • Conditional branch: To allow the reasoning model to take different reasoning paths based on the condition, we use if and else statement to describe the logic. • Conditional branch: • Loop: We can efficiently present repetitive instructions that iterate over a list of items by using loops, such as for and while loop. Loop • Abstraction: In programming, we can encapsulate a complex logic into a single function. Focusing on this, we adopt modular design in constructing pseudocode prompts by encapsulating complex and repetitive process into an abstract function. Abstraction • Variables: Variables are essential in programming languages as they store data values to execute instructions. Similarly, in reasoning, keeping track of variables is crucial for maintaining state, passing data, and for general data manipulation tasks. Variables • Comments and docstrings: As human programmers can rely on the assistance of comments to better understand codes, we provide more detailed explanations on the intent of code via comments. Also, comments and docstrings can compensate the limitation when some semantics cannot be directly expressed with programming language. • Comments and docstrings B.3 Comparison to Related Work Table 6 summarizes some related approaches to ours. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Details of Think-and-Execute That You Don't Want to Miss

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis A Experimental Details A.1 Models We use several LLMs, including GPT-3.5-Turbo (OpenAI, 2023) and GPT-4 (Achiam et al., 2023), which are available via OpenAI API[4], and open-source LLM, CodeLlama (Roziere et al., 2023) as the Instructor LM I and the Reasoner LM R. • GPT-3.5-Turbo: gpt-3.5-turbo-0125 • GPT-3.5-Turbo • GPT-4: gpt-4-0613 • GPT-4 • CodeLlama: CodeLlama encompasses variations of LLaMA2 fine-tuned for code domains using code corpus. This comprehensive collection features models of various sizes (7B, 13B, 34B, and 70B) and diverse types, including the foundation model, Python-focused model, and instruction-following model. In our study, we employ the CodeLlama-Instruct model (7B[5], 13B[6]). CodeLlama A.2 Inference We use vLLM to improve inference throughput.[7] During our experiments, we adopt temperature sampling with T = 0.0 (i.e., greedy decoding) to efficiently generate outputs. For a task comprising 250 instances, GPT-3.5-Turbo achieves an inference time of 30 seconds. Additionally, utilizing 2 A100 GPUs, CodeLlama achieves inference times of approximately 2 and 5 minutes for 7B and 13B models, respectively. A.3 Evaluation To extract answers for evaluation, LLMs generate the final answer triggered by the phrase ”Final answer: ”. Following Suzgun et al. (2022), we provide all multiple-choice options to LLMs as input, then measure accuracy using exact match (EM), which compares the generated output with the ground-truth label. To ensure fair comparison between PoT and other baselines, we also admit the prediction that includes the text of correct choice, e.g., blue, but without a choice tag, e.g., ”(A)”. A.4 Datasets We take 7 algorithmic benchmarks from Big-Bench Hard (Suzgun et al., 2022) dataset. All datasets contain 250 examples respectively. We provide the descriptions of each dataset regarding the goals and contexts. • Dyck Languages (DL): Complete a partially given Dyck-4 sequence by predicting the necessary sequence of closing brackets that are missing at the end. • Dyck Languages (DL) • Geometric Shapes (GS): Determine the geometric figure formed by following all the instructions in a specified SVG path element containing several commands. • Geometric Shapes (GS) • Navigate (Nav): Evaluate whether a set of directional commands will return a navigator to the starting point. • Navigate (Nav) • Reasoning about Colored Objects (CO): Given a scenario, deduce the color of a specific object placed on a surface, using the provided context for guidance. • Reasoning about Colored Objects (CO) • Temporal Sequences (TS): Examine a chronology of a person’s daily activities to find when they could fit an additional activity into their schedule. • Temporal Sequences (TS) • Tracking Shuffled Objectives (SO): Ascertain the final positions of several objects after they have been moved from their original locations through a sequence of exchanges. We use the version of the task with 5 objectives. • Tracking Shuffled Objectives (SO) • Web of Lies (WL): Assess the veracity of a Boolean function presented within a narrative problem to establish its truthfulness. • Web of Lies (WL) This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [4] https://openai.com/blog/openai-api [5] https://huggingface.co/codellama/CodeLlama-7b-Instruct-hf [6] https://huggingface.co/codellama/CodeLlama-13b-Instruct-hf [7] https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Think-and-Execute: The Experimental Details

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis 8 Conclusion In this paper, we present THINK-AND-EXECUTE, an algorithmic reasoning framework that generates a logic for solving the given task into a pseudocode and performs reasoning by simulating the execution of the pseudocode with language models. Through extensive experiments, we show the effectiveness of THINK-AND-EXECUTE, over the strong baselines. These results underscore not only the usefulness of pseudocode in eliciting language models’ reasoning capabilities but also the efficiency of our framework in discovering the highquality logic behind a given task. References Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W Cohen. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. Pal: Program-aided language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 10764–10799. PMLR, 2023. Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. ArXiv, abs/2305.14992, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258865812. Haozhe Ji, Pei Ke, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. Language generation with multi-hop reasoning on commonsense knowledge graph. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2020. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:221879025. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022. Chengshu Li, Jacky Liang, Fei Xia, Andy Zeng, Sergey Levine, Dorsa Sadigh, Karol Hausman, Xinyun Chen, Li Fei-Fei, and brian ichter. Chain of code: Reasoning with a language model-augmented code interpreter. In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=tlRUbI0Yf3. Aman Madaan and Amir Yazdanbakhsh. Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07686, 2022. Niklas Muennighoff, Qian Liu, Armel Randy Zebaze, Qinkai Zheng, Binyuan Hui, Terry Yue Zhuo, Swayam Singh, Xiangru Tang, Leandro Von Werra, and Shayne Longpre. Octopack: Instruction tuning code large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=mw1PWNSWZP. OpenAI. Chatgpt, 2023. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt. Liangming Pan, Alon Albalak, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. Logic-lm: Empowering large language models with symbolic solvers for faithful logical reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2305.12295, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258833332. Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jer´ emy Rapin, et al. Code llama: Open foundation ´ models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Scharli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won ¨ Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. Challenging bigbench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. Karthik Valmeekam, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Large language models still can’t plan (a benchmark for LLMs on planning and reasoning about change). In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=wUU-7XTL5XO. Lei Wang, Wanyu Xu, Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Yunshi Lan, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Ee-Peng Lim. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 2609–2634, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023. acl-long.147. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J. Dingjun Wu, Jing Zhang, and Xinmei Huang. Chain of thought prompting elicits knowledge augmentation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pp. 6519–6534, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.408. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. HellaSwag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 4791–4800, Florence, Italy, July 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P19-1472. URL https: //aclanthology.org/P19-1472. Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale ¨ Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2022a. Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09066, 2022b. Pei Zhou, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Xinyun Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, Swaroop Mishra, and Huaixiu Steven Zheng. Self-discover: Large language models self-compose reasoning structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03620, 2024. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Think-and-Execute: The Takeaway

Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Think-and-Execute 2 Think-and-Execute 3 Experimental Setup 3 Experimental Setup 4 Results 4 Results 5 Analysis 5 Analysis 6 Related Work 6 Related Work 7 Limitations and Discussion 7 Limitations and Discussion 8 Conclusion and References 8 Conclusion and References A Experimental Details A Experimental Details B Details of Think-and-Execute B Details of Think-and-Execute C Prompts Used in Our Experiments C Prompts Used in Our Experiments D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts D Human-written Pseudocode Prompts E Generated Analyses E Generated Analyses F Generated Pseudocode Prompts F Generated Pseudocode Prompts G Qualitative Analysis G Qualitative Analysis 7 Limitations and Discussion A possible limitation of our approach is that we focus on algorithmic reasoning, as we believe it is the best setting to assess LLMs’ capabilities in understanding a complex logic and carrying out a sequence of reasoning step, following the logic. However, we believe that THINK-AND-EXECUTE can be applied to other domains of reasoning that require following a long sequence of reasoning steps, such as multi-hop reasoning (Ji et al., 2020) and symbolic reasoning (Madaan & Yazdanbakhsh, 2022). This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University;
(2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI;
(4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University;
(5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University;
(6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University;
(7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University;
(8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University;
(9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University;
(10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University;
(11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University. Authors: Authors: (1) Hyungjoo Chae, Yonsei University; (2) Yeonghyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (3) Seungone Kim, KAIST AI; (4) Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Yonsei University; (5) Beong-woo Kwak, Yonsei University; (6) Moohyeon Kim, Yonsei University; (7) Seonghwan Kim, Yonsei University; (8) Taeyoon Kwon, Yonsei University; (9) Jiwan Chung, Yonsei University; (10) Youngjae Yu, Yonsei University; (11) Jinyoung Yeo, Yonsei University.

Stories, News & Mentions about BDEO

Categories

Trending Topics

Stories, News & Mentions about BDEO

Bdeo’s Stories on HackerNoon

Categories

Trending Topics