Chain of Thoughtlessness: An Analysis of CoT in Planning

AI-generated keywords: Large Language Models Chains of Thought Performance Enhancement Algorithmic Procedures Planning Tasks

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Study focuses on performance of large language models (LLMs) on reasoning problems
  • Investigates impact of modifying prompts to include examples with chains of thought (CoT) on LLM performance
  • Case study conducted using problems from Blocksworld planning domain
  • Evaluation based on generality of examples in prompt and complexity of presented problems
  • Performance enhancements from CoT prompts observed only when highly specific to problem classes
  • Diminishing performance improvements as query-specified stacks grow beyond example sizes
  • Emphasizes need for problem-specific prompts over general algorithmic procedures for optimal results
  • Significant tradeoff between potential gains and human effort required to generate accurate reasoning traces with CoT approaches
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, Subbarao Kambhampati

arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2305.15771

Abstract: Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated by modifying prompts to include examples with chains of thought--demonstrations of solution procedures--with the intuition that it is possible to in-context teach an LLM an algorithm for solving the problem. This paper presents a case study of chain of thought on problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain, and examine the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs across two axes: generality of examples given in prompt, and complexity of problems queried with each prompt. While our problems are very simple, we only find meaningful performance improvements from chain of thought prompts when those prompts are exceedingly specific to their problem class, and that those improvements quickly deteriorate as the size n of the query-specified stack grows past the size of stacks shown in the examples. Our results hint that, contrary to previous claims in the literature, CoT's performance improvements do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures via demonstrations and depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially because of the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.

Submitted to arXiv on 08 May. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2405.04776v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In their paper titled "Chain of Thoughtlessness: An Analysis of CoT in Planning," authors Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, and Subbarao Kambhampati delve into the performance of large language models (LLMs) on reasoning problems. Specifically focusing on the concept of chains of thought (CoT), the study aims to investigate whether modifying prompts to include examples with chains of thought can improve LLM performance by teaching the model algorithmic procedures for problem-solving. The authors conduct a case study using problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain. They evaluate the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs along two key axes: the generality of examples provided in the prompt and the complexity of problems presented with each prompt. Despite working with relatively simple problems, the researchers discover that meaningful performance enhancements from chain of thought prompts are only observed when these prompts are highly specific to their respective problem classes. Interestingly, the study reveals that as the size of query-specified stacks grows beyond what is shown in the examples, any performance improvements derived from chain of thought prompts quickly diminish. This finding challenges previous claims in literature suggesting that CoT's effectiveness lies in teaching LLMs general algorithmic procedures through demonstrations. Instead, it highlights a reliance on meticulously crafting problem-specific prompts for optimal results. The authors emphasize a notable drawback associated with chain of thought approaches: a significant tradeoff between potential performance gains and the substantial human effort required to generate examples with accurate reasoning traces. This sheds light on important considerations for leveraging CoT in planning tasks and underscores the importance of carefully tailored prompts for maximizing its benefits.
Created on 31 May. 2024

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 representation

Look 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.