Sonny George

Sonny George, Chris Sypherd, Dylan Cashman

Large language model (LLM) agents show promise in an increasing number of domains. In many proposed applications, it is expected that the agent reasons over accumulated experience presented in an input prompt. We propose the OEDD (Operationalize Experience Despite Distraction) corpus, a human-annotator-validated body of scenarios with pre-scripted agent histories where the agent must make a decision based on disparate experiential information in the presence of a distractor. We evaluate three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using a minimal chain-of-thought prompting strategy and observe that when (1) the input context contains over 1,615 tokens of historical interactions, (2) a crucially decision-informing premise is the rightful conclusion over two disparate environment premises, and (3) a trivial, but distracting red herring fact follows, all LLMs perform worse than random choice at selecting the better of two actions. Our code and test corpus are publicly available at: https://github.com/sonnygeorge/OEDD .

James Petullo, Sonny George, Dylan Cashman et al.

A standard technique for scaling inference-time reasoning is Self-Consistency, whereby multiple candidate answers are sampled from an LLM and the most common answer is selected. More recently, it has been shown that weighted majority voting (e.g. Confidence-Informed Self Consistency (CISC)), which assigns a confidence value to each candidate answer and chooses the answer with the largest accumulated score, tends to be more accurate on a wide range of popular benchmarks. In practice, weighted majority voting necessitates calling a critic LLM on each candidate's reasoning trace to produce the answer's confidence score. This secondary series of LLM calls greatly increases the overhead and cost of weighted majority voting, despite its potential performance benefits. To reduce this expense, we propose VecCISC, a lightweight, adaptive framework that uses a measure of semantic similarity to filter reasoning traces that are semantically equivalent to others, degenerate, or hallucinated, thus decreasing the number of candidate answers that must be evaluated by the critic. To ensure adequate experimental thoroughness, we evaluate VecCISC on five challenging, widely-adopted datasets spanning the domains of mathematics, chemistry, biology, commonsense reasoning, and the humanities. Our results demonstrate that VecCISC reduces the total token usage by 47%, while maintaining or exceeding the accuracy of CISC.

Chris Sypherd, Sergei Petrov, Sonny George et al.

In recent years, large language models have demonstrated remarkable performance across diverse tasks. However, their task effectiveness is heavily dependent on the prompting strategy used to elicit output, which can vary widely in both performance and token usage. While task performance is often used to determine prompting strategy success, we argue that efficiency--balancing performance and token usage--can be a more practical metric for real-world utility. To enable this, we propose Big-$O_{tok}$, a theoretical framework for describing the token usage growth of prompting strategies, and analyze Token Cost, an empirical measure of tokens per performance. We apply these to several common prompting strategies and find that increased token usage leads to drastically diminishing performance returns. Our results validate the Big-$O_{tok}$ analyses and reinforce the need for efficiency-aware evaluations.