REVIEW 1 cited by
Self-Training Meets Consistency: Improving LLMs' Reasoning with Consistency-Driven Rationale Evaluation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Self-Training Meets Consistency: Improving LLMs' Reasoning with Consistency-Driven Rationale Evaluation
read the original abstract
Self-training approach for large language models (LLMs) improves reasoning abilities by training the models on their self-generated rationales. Previous approaches have labeled rationales that produce correct answers for a given question as appropriate for training. However, a single measure risks misjudging rationale quality, leading the models to learn flawed reasoning patterns. To address this issue, we propose CREST (Consistency-driven Rationale Evaluation for Self-Training), a self-training framework that further evaluates each rationale through follow-up questions and leverages this evaluation to guide its training. Specifically, we introduce two methods: (1) filtering out rationales that frequently result in incorrect answers on follow-up questions and (2) preference learning based on mixed preferences from rationale evaluation results of both original and follow-up questions. Experiments on three question-answering datasets using open LLMs show that CREST not only improves the logical robustness and correctness of rationales but also improves reasoning abilities compared to previous self-training approaches.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
PRISMA: Preference-Reinforced Self-Training Approach for Interpretable Emotionally Intelligent Negotiation Dialogues
PRISMA augments self-training with direct preference optimization and an emotion-aware negotiation strategy chain-of-thought to produce more interpretable and effective negotiation dialogues on two new datasets.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.