pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.20046 · v2 · pith:ODJEYABJnew · submitted 2024-03-29 · 💻 cs.CL

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

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords llmsmistakescorrectreasoningerrorslearnpromptingbenefits
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

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

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. FVRuleLearner: Operator-Level Reasoning Tree (OP-Tree)-Based Rules Learning for Formal Verification

    cs.AR 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    FVRuleLearner introduces an Operator Reasoning Tree to learn operator-specific rules that improve natural-language to SystemVerilog assertion generation, raising syntax correctness by 3.95% and functional correctness ...

  2. Step-DPO: Step-wise Preference Optimization for Long-chain Reasoning of LLMs

    cs.LG 2024-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Step-DPO performs preference optimization on individual reasoning steps rather than complete answers, producing nearly 3% accuracy gains on MATH for 70B+ parameter models with 10K preference pairs.

  3. AdaSwitch: Adaptive Switching between Small and Large Agents for Effective Cloud-Local Collaborative Learning

    cs.CL 2024-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AdaSwitch improves small local LLM performance on reasoning tasks by adaptively switching to a large cloud LLM upon detected errors, sometimes matching cloud results with far less overhead.