Sierra S. Liu

Chen Feng Tsai, Xiaochen Zhou, Sierra S. Liu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GPT-4 have recently demonstrated their remarkable abilities of communicating with human users. In this technical report, we take an initiative to investigate their capacities of playing text games, in which a player has to understand the environment and respond to situations by having dialogues with the game world. Our experiments show that ChatGPT performs competitively compared to all the existing systems but still exhibits a low level of intelligence. Precisely, ChatGPT can not construct the world model by playing the game or even reading the game manual; it may fail to leverage the world knowledge that it already has; it cannot infer the goal of each step as the game progresses. Our results open up new research questions at the intersection of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing.

A M Muntasir Rahman, Junyi Ye, Wei Yao et al.

Consider the math problem: "Lily received 3 cookies from her best friend yesterday and ate 5 for breakfast. Today, her friend gave her 3 more cookies. How many cookies does Lily have now?" Many large language models (LLMs) in previous research approach this problem by calculating the answer "1" using the equation "3 - 5 + 3." However, from a human perspective, we recognize the inherent flaw in this problem: Lily cannot eat 5 cookies if she initially only had 3. This discrepancy prompts a key question: Are current LLMs merely Blind Solver that apply mathematical operations without deeper reasoning, or can they function as Logical Thinker capable of identifying logical inconsistencies? To explore this question, we propose a benchmark dataset, FaultyMath, which includes faulty math problems of rich diversity: i) multiple mathematical categories, e.g., algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., ii) varying levels of difficulty, and iii) different origins of faultiness -- ranging from violations of common sense and ambiguous statements to mathematical contradictions and more. We evaluate a broad spectrum of LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and math-specialized models, using FaultyMath across three dimensions: (i) How accurately can the models detect faulty math problems without being explicitly prompted to do so? (ii) When provided with hints -- either correct or misleading -- about the validity of the problems, to what extent do LLMs adapt to become reliable Logical Thinker? (iii) How trustworthy are the explanations generated by LLMs when they recognize a math problem as flawed? Through extensive experimentation and detailed analysis, our results demonstrate that existing LLMs largely function as Blind Solver and fall short of the reasoning capabilities required to perform as Logical Thinker.