REVIEW 2 cited by
Understanding the Language Model to Solve the Symbolic Multi-Step Reasoning Problem from the Perspective of Buffer Mechanism
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
Large language models have consistently struggled with complex reasoning tasks, such as mathematical problem-solving. Investigating the internal reasoning mechanisms of these models can help us design better model architectures and training strategies, ultimately enhancing their reasoning capability. In this study, we constructed a symbolic multi-step reasoning task to investigate the information propagation mechanisms in Transformer models when solving the task through direct answering and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. We introduced the concept of buffer mechanism: the model stores various information in distinct buffers and selectively extracts it through the query-key matrix. We proposed a random matrix-based algorithm to enhance the model's reasoning ability. This algorithm introduces only 132 trainable parameters, yet leads to significant performance improvements on 7 multi-step reasoning datasets, including PrOntoQA, LogicAsker, and LogicInference. These findings provide new insights into understanding the large language models.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
DenseSteer: Steering Small Language Models towards Dense Math Reasoning
DenseSteer is an inference-time steering framework that improves small LLMs' accuracy on math reasoning by modulating representations toward dense reasoning patterns with fewer but higher-density steps.
-
Reinforcement Learning in hyperbolic space for multi-step reasoning
Hyperbolic transformer policies are claimed to beat vanilla transformer policies by 32-45% on a handful of reasoning and control problems, but the evidence is too weak to support the claim.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.