Rui Wang

Yansi Li, Jiahao Xu, Tian Liang et al.

Enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), particularly for complex tasks requiring multi-step logical deductions, remains a significant challenge. Traditional inference time scaling methods utilize scalar reward signals from process reward models to evaluate candidate reasoning steps, but these scalar rewards lack the nuanced qualitative information essential for understanding and justifying each step. In this paper, we propose a novel inference-time scaling approach -- stepwise natural language self-critique (PANEL), which employs self-generated natural language critiques as feedback to guide the step-level search process. By generating rich, human-readable critiques for each candidate reasoning step, PANEL retains essential qualitative information, facilitating better-informed decision-making during inference. This approach bypasses the need for task-specific verifiers and the associated training overhead, making it broadly applicable across diverse tasks. Experimental results on challenging reasoning benchmarks, including AIME and GPQA, demonstrate that PANEL significantly enhances reasoning performance, outperforming traditional scalar reward-based methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/puddingyeah/PANEL to support and encourage future research in this promising field.

Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao et al.

Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of "tit for tat" state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents. Code is available at https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate.