Contrastive Chain-of-Thought Prompting
AI-generated Key Points
- The paper explores the concept of chain of thought in enhancing language model reasoning.
- Previous studies have shown minimal impact of invalid demonstrations on reasoning performance.
- Conventional chain of thought lacks guidance to avoid mistakes, potentially leading to more errors.
- The authors propose a new approach called contrastive chain of thought.
- Contrastive chain of thought provides both valid and invalid reasoning demonstrations to guide language models while reducing mistakes.
- An automatic method for constructing contrastive demonstrations is introduced to improve generalization.
- Experimental results demonstrate that contrastive chain of thought enhances reasoning capabilities compared to traditional approaches.
- Code implementation is provided for further exploration and research.
Authors: Yew Ken Chia, Guizhen Chen, Luu Anh Tuan, Soujanya Poria, Lidong Bing
Abstract: Despite the success of chain of thought in enhancing language model reasoning, the underlying process remains less well understood. Although logically sound reasoning appears inherently crucial for chain of thought, prior studies surprisingly reveal minimal impact when using invalid demonstrations instead. Furthermore, the conventional chain of thought does not inform language models on what mistakes to avoid, which potentially leads to more errors. Hence, inspired by how humans can learn from both positive and negative examples, we propose contrastive chain of thought to enhance language model reasoning. Compared to the conventional chain of thought, our approach provides both valid and invalid reasoning demonstrations, to guide the model to reason step-by-step while reducing reasoning mistakes. To improve generalization, we introduce an automatic method to construct contrastive demonstrations. Our experiments on reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that contrastive chain of thought can serve as a general enhancement of chain-of-thought prompting.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.