REVIEW 2 cited by
Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models
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
read the original abstract
Conceptual reasoning, the ability to reason in abstract and high-level perspectives, is key to generalization in human cognition. However, limited study has been done on large language models' capability to perform conceptual reasoning. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions and generate solutions in a verifiable symbolic space. Using this framework as an analytical tool, we show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks compared to direct inference methods. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making. We propose two techniques to add trustworthy induction signals by generating familiar questions with similar underlying reasoning paths and asking models to perform self-refinement. Experiments show that our proposed techniques improve models' conceptual reasoning performance by 8% to 11%, achieving a more robust reasoning system that relies less on inductive biases.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
AUTOCT: Automating Interpretable Clinical Trial Prediction with LLM Agents
AutoCT achieves test ROC-AUC 0.753, 0.639, and 0.702 on Phase I/II/III trial approval prediction using 100-sample subsets and LLM-generated features.
-
One Example Shown, Many Concepts Known! Counterexample-Driven Conceptual Reasoning in Mathematical LLMs
LLMs score poorly on CounterMATH, a new counterexample-based university math benchmark, and a 1,025-sample counterexample fine-tune yields small and partly inconsistent gains.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.