Title: Instance-adaptive Zero-shot Chain-of-Thought Prompting
Venue: NeurIPS 2024
Accepted: yes
Keywords: Large Language Models

Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Instance-adaptive

Zero-shot
Abstract: Zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting emerges as a simple and effective strategy for enhancing the performance of large language models (LLMs) in real-world reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, the efficacy of a singular, task-level prompt uniformly applied across the whole of instances is inherently limited since one prompt cannot be a good partner for all, a more appropriate approach should consider the interaction between the prompt and each instance meticulously. This work introduces an instance-adaptive prompting algorithm as an alternative zero-shot CoT reasoning scheme by adaptively differentiating good and bad prompts. Concretely, we first employ analysis on LLMs through the lens of information flow to detect the mechanism under zero-shot CoT reasoning, in which we discover that information flows from question to prompt and question to rationale jointly influence the reasoning results most. We notice that a better zero-shot CoT reasoning needs the prompt to obtain semantic information from the question then the rationale aggregates sufficient information from the question directly and via the prompt indirectly. On the contrary, lacking any of those would probably lead to a bad one. Stem from that, we further propose an instance-adaptive prompting strategy (IAP) for zero-shot CoT reasoning. Experiments conducted with LLaMA-2, LLaMA-3, and Qwen on math, logic, and commonsense reasoning tasks (e.g., GSM8K, MMLU, Causal Judgement) obtain consistent improvement, demonstrating that the instance-adaptive zero-shot CoT prompting performs better than other task-level methods with some curated prompts or sophisticated procedures, showing the significance of our findings in the zero-shot CoT reasoning mechanism.

Instance-adaptive Zero-shot Chain-of-Thought Prompting

Abstract

Zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting emerges as a simple and effective strategy for enhancing the performance of large language models (LLMs) in realworld reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, the efficacy of a singular, task-level prompt uniformly applied across the whole of instances is inherently limited since one prompt cannot be a good partner for all, a more appropriate approach should consider the interaction between the prompt and each instance meticulously. This work introduces an instance-adaptive prompting algorithm as an alternative zero-shot CoT reasoning scheme by adaptively differentiating good and bad prompts. Concretely, we first employ analysis on LLMs through the lens of information flow to detect the mechanism under zero-shot CoT reasoning, in which we discover that information flows from question to prompt and question to rationale jointly influence the reasoning results most. We notice that a better zero-shot CoT reasoning needs the prompt to obtain semantic information from the question, and then the rationale aggregates sufficient information from the question directly and via the prompt indirectly. On the contrary, lacking any of those would probably lead to a bad one. Stem from that, we further propose an instance-adaptive prompting strategy (IAP) for zero-shot CoT reasoning. Experiments conducted with LLaMA-2, LLaMA3, and Qwen on math, logic, and commonsense reasoning tasks (e.g., GSM8k, MMLU, Causal Judgement) obtain consistent improvement, demonstrating that the instance-adaptive zero-shot CoT prompting performs better than other task-level methods with some curated prompts or sophisticated procedures, showing the significance of our findings in the zero-shot CoT reasoning mechanism.

1 Introduction

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated capabilities at tackling copious reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) [1-10]. Compared to the few-shot setting for CoT generally, zero-shot CoT prompting can achieve approximate performance with merely one natural language prompt rather than complicated demonstrations, which has been proven as a simple and efficient paradigm [2]. Numerous efforts have been thrown into searching for better prompts that can benefit zero-shot CoT reasoning. Plan-and-Solve [6] employs a human-crafted prompt to break down the

†

Work done during an internship at Alibaba Cloud Computing

Question: There are five phones on a phone

plan. The main phone costs twice as much as

each

additional

phone.

If

the

main

phone

plan costs $20, how much does the whole

phone plan cost?

Let's think step by step.

The additional phone costs $20 / 2 = $10. The

total cost of additional phones is 5 * $10 =

$50. The whole phone plan costs $50 + $20 =

$70. The answer is 70. The answer is 70.

LLM

The answer is 60.

Question: There are five phones on a phone

plan. The main phone costs twice as much as

each

additional

phone.

If

the

main

phone

plan costs $20, how much does the whole

phone plan cost?

Don't think. Just feel.

LLM

question and automatically generates reasoning steps. OPRO [7] takes the LLM as an optimizer to update a zero-shot CoT prompt iteratively and produce corresponding optimized prompts for a given task. Self-discover [9] selects relevant atomic reasoning modules (e.g. breaking down problems, critical thinking) for a given task, then adapts and customizes those modules to fit the task.

All prior methods focused on constructing prompts from the task perspective, aiming to find the optimal task-level prompt. Seeking the optimal prompt for a given task may achieve compelling performance, beating other prompts on the dataset scale. However, from the perspective of instance, the task-level optimal prompt within a dataset may have adverse effects on certain instances, whereby the model, capable of correctly answering them under other sub-optimal task-level prompts [11-16]. Figure 1 illustrates an instance from GSM8k dataset [17], this is a simple question that can be straightforwardly answered correctly under "Don't think. Just feel.", which is generally regarded as a less favorable prompt, but "Let's think step by step" guides the LLM to bad reasoning in some steps. Therefore, an instance-wise zero-shot CoT prompt is more plausible for better reasoning and may achieve a cap-breaking performance compared to the task-level optimal prompt.

Nevertheless, the severe challenge of choosing one of the suitable prompts for each instance remains: the difficulty of understanding why some reasoning processes succeed while others fail. To meet such a challenge, we intend to detect the mechanism of zero-shot CoT which is an unclear mystery [18-21]. Neuron saliency score analysis is an important approach for observing the information flow during the model inference [22-25], by which we can observe a click of the dynamic reasoning process in certain steps. After comprehensive investigation across several LLMs and tasks, we find that a successful reasoning procedure tends to satisfy the following conditions: the semantic information of the question should be aggregated to the prompt first, and the reasoning steps gather information from both the original question and the synthesized question-prompt semantic information. Otherwise, it is more likely to be a failure reasoning. Such a saliency score phenomenon is in line with human intuition, as the question is the beginning of reasoning, one needs to understand it first, then solve it following the rules within the prompt while always concerning the question itself.

Inspired by the above findings, we further propose an instance-adaptive prompting strategy (IAP) for zero-shot CoT reasoning. Given a list of prompts in distinct styles, we try to recognize good ones that elicit LLMs to reason toward the correct answer while avoiding bad CoT reasoning, referring to the analytical results. We conduct comprehensive experiments with IAP and existing methods with multiple LLMs on various tasks. Experimental results show that the IAP can consistently improve the overall performance of LLMs such as LLaMA-2-13B-Chat, LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct, and Qwen-14B-Chat on kinds of reasoning tasks including math, logic, and commonsense reasoning. Specifically, the IAP strategy achieves a 2%-4% accuracy enhancement across tasks and models compared to the optimal task-level prompt. Our contributions can be summarized as follows:

We look into the inside interactions among three components ( i.e. , question, prompt, rationale) in zero-shot CoT reasoning through the saliency score analysis and discover that good reasoning rationale tends to aggregate information from both the question and the prompt,

in which the prompt first gathers information from the question. In contrast, bad reasoning probably ignores one of them.

We propose the IAP - an instance-level adaptive prompting strategy based on our findings to achieve better CoT reasoning by selecting a proper prompt that can elicit LLMs to reason from some given prompts for each question correctly.

Extensive experiments illustrate the superior performance of our instance-level adaptive prompting zero-shot CoT strategy, demonstrating the effectiveness of our findings for differentiating the reasoning processes with saliency scores.

2 Information Flow Analysis on Zero-shot CoT

It is critical to determine the key factors for good zero-shot CoT reasoning, therefore we dive into the LLMs inference process in disparate parts. There are three main components in zero-shot CoT: question q , prompt p , and rationale r , and we need to choose a proper tool to analyze the semantic information interactions among these components. The saliency score is a common practice for analyzing the information flow in In-Context Learning [22, 24], and we intend to adapt it to CoT reasoning to observe the information flow in the zero-shot setting. The saliency matrix is computed by multiplying an attention matrix and its gradient for the target output element-wise as follows:

where x is the input of the model, A ( ℓ,h ) represents the value of the attention matrix of the h -th head in the ℓ -th layer, ⊙ represents the operation of element-wise multiplication, and L ( · ) is the loss function, which is the cross-entropy in our implementation. Since the attention module involves interactions among the whole sequence, as a view of information flow, we can compute the saliency scores between dispersed parts during zero-shot CoT reasoning.

2.1 Preliminary analysis

We define the reasoning that produces the right answer to a given question as good reasoning, otherwise as bad reasoning. Given various information interactions happen among reasoning steps during the model inference, choosing which step ( i.e. , output token) to explore is critical. Despite the most popular practice being the last step for the In-Context Learning [22, 24], there are distinct circumstances in the CoT reasoning [25], our investigation shows that not all the final answers appear at the reasoning last step. To eliminate the effect of distinct LLM generation styles as much as possible, we adopt uniformly the answer generation step for all tasks as our observation time, concretely, we implement that with several regular expressions to recognize the answer step during model inference. More details are in Appendix A.2.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Since "Let's think step by step." and "Don't think. Just feel." are two representative good and bad zero-shot prompts on task-level in [2], we select them as our test prompts. We explore the saliency score with Qwen-14B [26] on GSM8k [17] and maintain consistency in the following analysis, and we also put similar visual analysis on other models and datasets in the Appendix. To inspect saliency scores of good reasonings and bad ones, we randomly pick two pairs of good-bad reasoning instances under two prompts and visualize the saliency scores inside them in Figure 2, each subfigure depicts the mean of saliency matrices of all layers and all heads, i.e. , I = 1 LH ∑ L ℓ =1 ∑ H h =1 I ( ℓ,h ) where L and H are the numbers of layer and head. As mentioned earlier, we emphasize the question, prompt, and rationale during reasoning. In Figure 2a, tokens from the first to the last of the prompt collect information from the question tokens evidently, and some tokens especially those near the answer in the rationale aggregate information from the question and prompt tokens evidently, either. In Figure 2b, things start to change, it seems that the prompt tokens fail to gather information from question tokens, not sufficiently at least, and tokens in the rationale are unable to gain much information from the question or the prompt.

The good and bad reasoning patterns under "Don't think. Just feel." are in line with the ones under "Let's think step by step.", which is shown in Figure 2c and 2d. Figure 2c illustrates that even such a prompt may guide LLMs to output the answer in very few steps after the question, the prompt tokens still capture information from the question plainly, and the limited rationale tokens proactively take advantage of information from both the question and prompt. The phenomenon in a few cases cannot illustrate any universal pattern, hence, we randomly sample 100 instances including an even number of good and bad ones to test the suitability in a larger scope. Figure 3 elaborates that good reasonings have higher mean values on the question-to-prompt, question-to-rationale, and prompt-torationale than those bad, justifying the above phenomenon in a broader context. We can conclude that: For prompts that enable LLMs to reason correctly, there are significant saliency scores in the question-to-prompt and pronounced saliency scores from the question and prompt to the rationale; In contrast, for the prompts that do not lead LLMs to reason correctly, the saliency scores from the question to the prompt are usually not significant, or the flow from the question and the prompt to the rationale is not substantial. These findings align with the

q_to_p

q_to_r

p_to_r

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1e

5

Mean saliency scores comparison.

Bad reasoning

Good reasoning

human cognitive process: given a question, one needs to comprehend it first, and then address it by applying the guidelines provided in the prompt while always concerning the question itself.

With the saliency scores phenomenon during zero-shot CoT reasoning, we believe the strength of saliency scores among them may affect LLMs' reasoning quality. Hence, we obtain the saliency scores among the question, prompt, and CoT rationale:

where I ( ℓ,h ) ( i, j ) represents the intensity of information flow from the i -th token to the j -th token in the h -th head of ℓ -th attention layer, | C qp | denotes the number of interactions among question tokens and prompt tokens, q s and p s are the start tokens the question and the prompt, respectively, and q e and p e are the end tokens. The saliency score of the question-to-rationale I ( ℓ,h ) qr and the prompt to the rationale I ( ℓ,h ) pr share the same computing process, only with alteration of start and end tokens.

2.2 Layer analysis

Popular LLMs are Transformer decoder-only models of numbers of stacked layers, and these decoder blocks play distinct roles in processing information during model reasoning. To determine the discrepancy between good reasoning and bad, we intend to check layer-wise saliency scores. In Figure 4, we visualize the saliency scores within the LLM as it processes input through its multiple

layers, and each sub-figure depicts the mean of the saliency scores of all heads in a certain layer, i.e. , I ( ℓ ) qp = 1 H ∑ H h =1 I ( ℓ,h ) qp , ℓ = 1 , . . . , L . I ( ℓ ) qr and I ( ℓ ) pr follows the same principle. The sub-figures depict saliency scores that indicate the semantic information transfer between different components of the input: the question to the prompt, the question to rationale, and the prompt to rationale. The saliency scores here serve as a quantified metric to display how the semantics of the given question and the provided prompt contribute to a well-articulated rationale. Good and bad prompts' representation across the layers enables a deeper understanding of the internal dynamics and the efficacy with which the model synthesizes input information.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Layers

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Saliency scores

Question to prompt

Bad prompt

Good prompt

(a)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Layers

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

Saliency scores

Question to rationale

Bad prompt

Good prompt

(b)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Layers

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

Saliency scores

Prompt to rationale

Bad prompt

Good prompt

(c)

As observed in Figure 4a, there is a pronounced peak in shallow layers of the LLM, demonstrating a substantial transfer of semantic content from the question to prompt in the good reasoning. This trend suggests that when the model formulates a robust prompt, it effectively aggregates the critical aspects of the original question at the outset, setting a strong foundation for later steps. Figure 4b maintains lower, yet consistent, saliency scores through the majority layers for both good and bad prompts when transferring information from the question to the rationale. This implies that while the question's semantics are integral to crafting the rationale, the direct influence is far less than the initial aggregation seen in question to prompt saliency scores. Figure 4c depicts the information flow from the prompt to the rationale, we observe a minor but stable ascending trend for good prompts. This gradual integration underscores the importance of the prompt in orchestrating the connection between the given question and rationale, particularly in the later stages process within the LLM.

Through a layer-wise analysis, we notice that the question's information first aggregates to the prompt in shallow layers, which suggests that an appropriate prompt acts as a catalyst, enhancing the model's ability to integrate and leverage the question's meaning. Subsequently, the reasoning gathers and refines information from both the original question and the synthesized question-prompt semantics, culminating in a coherent and contextually informed rationale . These information aggregation phenomena signify that shallow layers of the model are capable of encoding the semantic information of the question and prompt. The insights drawn from these findings evoke the potential for interpretability and reasoning capabilities of LLMs, indicating that the judicious formation of prompts can orchestrate the saliency scores in ways that affect rationales' quality.

2.3 Head analysis

Multi-head attention is the fundamental component in the Transformer decoder to learn the same sequence from multi-view, like different positions of Transformer blocks, scattered heads are sensitive to their locations. Figure 5 provides an in-depth examination of the instance-level saliency scores within the attention mechanism of the LLM. Representation of saliency scores as heatmap visualizations offers a detailed perspective on how semantics flow the question, prompt, and rationale propagates through individual attention heads across various layers.

Figure 5a highlights the saliency scores from the question to the prompt, attention heads at the front of the middle and end positions effectively concentrate question semantics and aid their embedding into the prompt context. Notably, this pattern corroborates our understanding that certain heads are specialized in aggregating the shallow layers, which is essential for formulating coherent prompts. Figure 5b shows the transition from the question to the rationale, reflecting the model's nuanced strategy of parsing the question to spawn a rationale and this aligns with the layer-level analysis, asserting the importance of inheriting question semantics, albeit less evidently than the question-to-

0

2

4

6

8 101214161820222426283032343638

Heads

0

2

4

6

383634323028262422201816141210 8

Layers

question to prompt

0

2

4

6

8 101214161820222426283032343638

Heads

0

2

4

6

383634323028262422201816141210 8

Layers

question to rationale

0

2

4

6

8 101214161820222426283032343638

Heads

0

2

4

6

383634323028262422201816141210 8

Layers

prompt to rationale

prompt transition. Figure 5c delineates the flow from the prompt to the rationale, scattered saliency scores across heads denote that while all heads partake in the progression towards a rationale, middle and behind heads are pivotal in harmonizing the prompt with the rationale context. This staged intertwining of prompt and rationale semantics accentuates the sophisticated nature of information assimilation in the latter reasoning.

Combining the above 3 types of head-wise analysis, we note that the distribution and intensity of attention across heads are not homogeneous but are rather intricately patterned to orchestrate a hierarchical and systematic progression of semantics. The saliency scores from the question to the prompt and rationale are proven to be the core in the early phase, setting a solid foundation for rational derivation. The subsequent interactions that spawn the rationale further underscore the nuanced employment of attention heads in synthesizing compounds of the initial question with emergent prompt semantics . The intelligence encapsulated in this fine-grained attention tracing elucidates the role of discrete heads in sculpting the LLM's reasoning.

3 Adaptive Instance-level Zero-shot CoT

To discover the zero-shot CoT reasoning capabilities of LLMs, we meticulously decompose the saliency score inherent in layers and heads to discern patterns of good and bad CoT reasonings in a fine-grained manner. In Section 2.2 and 2.3, we find that good reasonings always have higher saliency scores than bad ones in the question-to-prompt, question-to-rationale, and prompt-to-rationale, we further discover the front heads of the middle and end positions in shallow layers contribute to the saliency scores in both the question-to-prompt and question-to-rationale.

We first compute the saliency scores of question-to-prompt, question-to-rationale, as well as promptto-rationale. Then, for each question and a certain prompt, we compute the synthesized saliency score as follows:

where I ( ℓ,h ) qp , I ( ℓ,h ) qr , and I ( ℓ,h ) pr are the question-to-prompt, question-to-rational and prompt-torationale saliency scores computed as Eq. 2, L , H are the indices set of the selected layers and heads, L × H is the cartesian product of two sets, | L | and | H | are the number of the elements in the set, and the λ 1 , λ 2 , and λ 3 are hyperparameters to adjust the ratio of different saliency scores and obey λ 1 + λ 2 + λ 3 = 1 . After engaging in a comparative analysis of numerous instances from various datasets with distinct LLMs and prompts, we summarize different saliency score thresholds of question-to-prompt, question-to-rationale, and prompt-to-rationale to delimit the good and bad reasonings when the inference reaches the answer step. Inspired by these analytical findings, we present a novel I nstanceA daptive P rompting strategy, dubbed IAP, which leverages the qualitative and quantitive saliency scores to tailor the zero-shot CoT prompting process instance-wise, thereby enhancing LLMs' reasoning ability. Our IAP framework can be instantiated through two distinct methodologies: Sequential Substitution (IAP-ss) and Majority Vote (IAP-mv).

Sequential Substitution (IAP-ss) Based on the above findings, we believe that a prompt with saliency scores surpassing the corresponding threshold is considered a good prompt for a given question, consequently mitigating the need to explore further prompts. Given the training data, we can search for an appropriate threshold. This process terminates upon either identifying an optimal prompt or traversing all candidates.

Majority Vote (IAP-mv) Alternatively, the IAP-mv necessitates the computation in Eq. 4 across all candidate prompts, then preserves the top maximum scores, predominant answer among these top scores is selected as the final answer. This synergistic combination ensures that the chosen prompt not only aligns with the LLM's inherent reasoning pattern but also complies with the collective intelligence inferred from an assorted selection of potential prompts.

Both methods have pros and cons: IAP-ss possesses the efficiency of a heuristic-based sequential evaluation, which needs less computational resource; while IAP-mv owns the robustness supported by the consensus-based vote. Correspondingly, IAP-ss can be constrained in its performance potency since a few irregular instances may depart from our findings; though IAP-mv may achieve better performance, it demands the comprehensive evaluation of all candidate prompts. In summary, the IAP contributes a novel perspective on the paradigm of instance-level prompting strategies that drive the frontier of zero-shot CoT reasoning with LLMs.

4 Experiments

4.1 Implementation

Models. We test IAP and comparison methods on LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct [27], LLaMA-3-70BInstruct [], LLaMA-2-13B-Chat [28], and Qwen-14B-Chat [26] since they are popular Transformer decoder-only LLMs, which is convenient for exploiting and analyzing inside architectures. For the IAP-ss, we obtain threshold values w.r.t distinct LLMs on different datasets, we compute the overall synthesized scores as defined in Eq 4. We set the generation mode to greedy-decoding to minimize irrelevant confounders during the model inference to ensure the answers to fixed questions under the same model and prompt, and all the experiments are run on an 8x NVIDIA A100 GPU server.

Baselines. Answer majority vote (AMV) is a simple method implemented by choosing the most popular result of all prompt candidates for a given question as its final answer. OPRO [7] takes the LLM as an optimizer to update a zeros-hot CoT prompt iteratively and produce corresponding optimized prompts for copious tasks. Self-Discover [9] selects relevant atomic reasoning modules ( e.g. , decomposing problems, critical thinking) for a given task, then adapts and customizes those modules to fit the task. These two frameworks aim to search for an appropriate prompt, similar to our purpose. We choose them as comparisons with the IAP to observe the performance difference between instance-level and task-level zero-shot CoT prompting.

Tasks & Metrics. GSM8k[17] is a challenging dataset for assessing the capability of language models in multi-step math reasoning. SVAMP [29] is presented for one-step math reasoning, which is easier than GSM8k. CommonsenseQA [30] is designed to evaluate a model's capacity for commonsense reasoning with questions that demand commonsense knowledge. The MMLU [31] can assess a model's multi-task learning abilities across natural language inference, commonsense reasoning, question answering, etc . Causal Judgement and Tracking Shuffled Objects are two sub-tasks in BBH[32], the former specifically tests a model's ability to reason about the dynamics and interactions of objects in a given scenario and the latter presents scenarios that require identifying the underlying causes and effects of specific events or phenomena. We select the GSM8k and SVAMP for math reasoning, Causal Judgement, and Tracking Shuffled Objects-5-Objects for logic reasoning, CSQA, and MMLU for Commonsense reasoning. For all tasks, we adopt Accuracy as the only evaluation metric.

Zero-shot CoT Prompts. In the following part, we use #1 to represent "Let's think step by step.", #2 denotes "First,", #3 is "The answer is after the proof.", #4 is "Before we dive into the answer,", #5 is "Let's solve this problem by splitting it into steps.", #6 is "Let's think about this logically.", #7 is "It's a beautiful day.", #8 is "Don't think. Just feel.", and #9 is "By the fact that the earth is round," and we implement the IAP by enabling these 9 prompts as the candidates.

4.2 Results

Prompts steer these LLMs to achieve different results in multiple tasks, and no single prompt can get an overwhelming performance on all datasets, which makes our research on the mechanism of zeroshot CoT valuable. Table 1 shows the zero-shot CoT reasoning results with LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct and Qwen-14B-Chat and various prompts on 3 reasoning tasks, we put the results of LLaMA-2-13B-Chat and larger LLaMA-3 70B in the Appendix since LLaMA models share a quite similar architecture.

Math reasoning. Compared with these prompts, IAP-mv improves the LLaMA-3 and Qwen's accuracy on GSM8k from 64.52%, 60.50% to 66.34%, 62.81% respectively. On SVAMP, IAP-mv obtains a 1.33% improvement on both models compared to the task-level-optimal prompt. It is worth noting that OPRO and Self-discover are unstable with different LLMs and datasets, indicating the unstable characteristics of task-level prompting. Results on these two math reasoning datasets demonstrate the IAP can benefit the math reasoning task.

Logic reasoning. For Causal Judgement, IAP-ss and IAP-mv enhance the accuracy of the task-level optimal prompt and IAP-mv outperforms OPRO, which is optimized by numerous iterations. For Tracking shuffle Objects, IAP-mv performs well with Qwen while achieving a sub-optimal accuracy with LLaMA-3, IAP-mv still obtains strong results, improving 2.4% and 2.3% with LLaMA-3 and Qwen, separately.

Commonsense reasoning. On CSQA, the IAP improves the accuracy of the former best for 3.44% with LLaMA-3, and 2.45% with Qwen. On MMLU, LLaMA-3 and Qwen obtain improvement to a large margin, either. We note that improving IAP-mv and IAP-ss on commonsense reasoning is more salient than the other two reasoning tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of the saliency score-based prompting strategies.

Apart from the above comparison, we can also observe that the answer majority vote among all prompts performs poorly in some tasks, in contrast, AMV (#1-7) can enhance it by eliminating misleading prompts. Such results indicate the instability of the AMV, whose performance can be affected by prompt candidates. Our IAP-mv outperforms it by a large margin, demonstrating that most prompts can lead the LLM to generate wrong answers for a given question, reaching only a few correct answers, i.e., such methods cannot recognize good or bad reasoning. Our IAP-mv can handle that with the analysis for information flow in reasoning, i.e., IAP-mv can differentiate good and bad reasoning, validating the effectiveness of our proposed strategy.

4.3 Ablation Studies

Consistency & Complementary The success of zero-shot prompting for CoT reasoning lies in the semantic information within those prompts, when the LLM receives a prompt, it would generate rationales by obeying the meaning of the prompt as much as possible. According to semantics, [2] categorizes these zeroshot CoT prompts into 3 types: instructive, misleading, and irrelevant, and we further define that prompts in the same category are consistent, or otherwise they are complementary. To detect which type of prompt combination contributed to the performance, we divide the 9 prompts into 3 consistency groups, but the irrelevant group contains only one prompt, thus we evaluate the complementary on the other two. For the complementary groups, we build them two-by-two. Table 2 depicts the performance of each group. We employ IAP-mv since it manifests a stronger capability in harnessing multiple prompts. we can observe that each pair of combinations can improve the performance, and instructive and

10

15

20

25

30

35

Seconds per iter.

32

34

36

38

40

42

Tracking Shuffle Objects

0-shot

Self-discover

IAP-mv

IAP-ss

irrelevant combinations achieve better outcomes than others, which comes from the base performance of instructive prompts.

Efficacy The order and number of prompt candidates are critical for the accuracy and efficacy of IAP-ss, in this paper, we adopt the #1-9 order to conduct IAP, and we also tried other settings. In Table 3., #9 is the worst task-level prompt, and #6 is the best task-level prompt, achieving the highest accuracy among all the prompt candidates while consuming the least time.

The prompt order of the 3rd row is accuracy-decreased on SVAMP, the 4th row is accuracy-increased, and the last row is our default setting, which obtains the best performance. This table shows that IAP-ss can cost less time with fewer prompt candidates but may obtain limited results, however, even fewer improper candidates could take a lot of computing time. Therefore, the time cost of IAP-ss is not a major issue if prompt candidates are in an appropriate order. As we mentioned in Section 3, the IAP-mv trades efficiency for performance, and IAP-ss emphasizes efficiency. We introduce the reasoning time (seconds) for

each iteration complete as the metric to measure the efficiency and conduct time-consuming experiments under the same setting to show the cost of IAP-mv, IAP-ss, and Self-Discover on the Tracking Shuffle Objects dataset, results are shown in Figure 6. All these strategies increase the computation cost to a certain degree, while IAP-ss may bring accuracy decreases than the task-level optimal prompt, it beats Self-discover. Though IAP-mv is the most time-consuming, it can improve performance, therefore, the two IAP strategies can be employed as trade-offs in different demand prioritization applications.

5 Related Work

CoT reasoning [1] advances the reasoning abilities of LLMs by demonstrating a series of logical steps preceding the input demonstration. Building on the groundwork laid by CoT, Self-consistency [3] innovates through a margin decoding strategy that emphasizes the majority paths to derive the final

answer, presenting a significant leap in CoT reasoning. Similarly, the Least-to-most [33] strategy decomposes a complex question into manageable subquestions, addressing them progressively to achieve a comprehensive solution. Furthermore, the Plan-and-Solve [6] automates the generation of reasoning steps through a meticulously crafted prompt, streamlining the breakdown of questions into digestible parts that can be tackled sequentially.

Promisingly, the AutoHint framework [34] augments the original prompt with enriched instructions extracted from contextual demonstrations. Similarly, the COSP [35] capitalizes on answer pools derived from training sets to compute outcome entropy, inspired by the notion of self-consistency, thereby refining the selection process for QA pairs used during test set demonstrations. In specialized prompting, MathPrompter [36] specifically caters to mathematics problems, employing handcrafted prompts to generate diverse algebraic expressions or Python functions. In contrast, Progressive-Hint Prompting [37] facilitates dynamic interactions between users and LLMs, guiding the reasoning with hints to generate from previous answers. Moreover, InstructZero [38] leverages an open-source LLM to enhance soft prompts relevant to Bayesian tasks, iteratively optimizing prompts to navigate through complex reasoning landscapes.

Advanced prompting approaches such as SelfzCoT [39] and Meta-prompting [40] showcase the evolutionary trajectory of prompting, which generates semantic and code prompts through a root prompt to obtain precise answers, while Meta-prompting deconstructs complex tasks into simpler sub-tasks, each addressed by specialized models to foster inter-model communication and apply intricate reasoning. Lastly, methodologies like OPRO [7] and the innovative concept of evolutionary prompting [16] aim to recursively optimize CoT prompts and generate varied prompts through mutations and crossovers. Self-discover [9] selects relevant atomic reasoning modules ( e.g. , breaking down problems, critical thinking) for a given task, then adapts and customizes those modules to fit the task. Implement the customized reasoning structure when solving task instances. These workarounds significantly contribute to developing zero-shot CoT prompts that guide LLMs toward more accurate problem framing, intermediate reasoning, and final answers.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, we aim to delve into the mechanism of LLMs in zero-shot CoT reasoning from the perspective of information flow to understand what happened during this process, and we find stronger saliency scores within question-to-prompt and question-to-rationale can lead to better LLM reasoning. To investigate these phenomena nuancedly, we go deep into the Transformer layers and attention heads in the LLM and find the front of the middle and final heads in shallow layers carry more information during information flows. Inspired by that, we present an instance-adaptive zero-shot prompting strategy for better CoT reasoning. To demonstrate our findings, we conduct comprehensive experiments on several LLMs and tasks, and the results show our proposed strategies can improve the performance of LLMs on all candidate prompts, highlighting our interpretation of zero-shot CoT in the view of information flow.

Limitations

In this work, we select the answer step as the key step to investigate and visualize the saliency scores, even in most instances it can be located well, and some irregular answers can not be identified precisely, such a factor may affect the generality and accuracy of our analysis. Different LLMs may have distinct patterns under the zero-shot CoT reasoning, for example, our analysis and conclusion can not meet all models. Despite our research providing insight into understanding the underlying workflow of zero-shot CoT reasoning, it cannot be the only interpretation, and we believe there must be better means to explain that.

References

Wei, J., X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:24824-24837, 2022.

Kojima, T., S. S. Gu, M. Reid, et al. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:22199-22213, 2022.

Wang, X., J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, et al. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , 2022.

Paul, D., M. Ismayilzada, M. Peyrard, et al. Refiner: Reasoning feedback on intermediate representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01904 , 2023.

Chu, Z., J. Chen, Q. Chen, et al. A survey of chain of thought reasoning: Advances, frontiers and future. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15402 , 2023.

Wang, L., W. Xu, Y. Lan, et al. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04091 , 2023.

Yang, C., X. Wang, Y. Lu, et al. Large language models as optimizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03409 , 2023.

Li, C., J. Liang, A. Zeng, et al. Chain of code: Reasoning with a language model-augmented code emulator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04474 , 2023.

Zhou, P., J. Pujara, X. Ren, et al. Self-discover: Large language models self-compose reasoning structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03620 , 2024.

Chen, S., B. Li, D. Niu. Boosting of thoughts: Trial-and-error problem solving with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11140 , 2024.

Zhou, Y., A. I. Muresanu, Z. Han, et al. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910 , 2022.

Srivastava, S., C. Huang, W. Fan, et al. Instance needs more care: Rewriting prompts for instances yields better zero-shot performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02107 , 2023.

Jiang, S., Z. Shakeri, A. Chan, et al. Resprompt: Residual connection prompting advances multi-step reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04743 , 2023.

Xi, Z., S. Jin, Y. Zhou, et al. Self-polish: Enhance reasoning in large language models via problem refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14497 , 2023.

Zheng, H. S., S. Mishra, X. Chen, et al. Take a step back: Evoking reasoning via abstraction in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06117 , 2023.

Jin, F., Y . Liu, Y . Tan. Zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning guided by evolutionary algorithms in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05376 , 2024.

Cobbe, K., V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 , 2021.

Merrill, W., A. Sabharwal. The expresssive power of transformers with chain of thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07923 , 2023.

Sun, H., W. Xu, W. Liu, et al. From indeterminacy to determinacy: Augmenting logical reasoning capabilities with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18659 , 2023.

Feng, G., B. Zhang, Y. Gu, et al. Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024.

Meng, Z., Y. Zhang, Z. Feng, et al. Divide and conquer for large language models reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05190 , 2024.

Dai, D., L. Dong, Y. Hao, et al. Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08696 , 2021.

Hao, Y., L. Dong, F. Wei, et al. Self-attention attribution: Interpreting information interactions inside transformer. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, pages 12963-12971. 2021.

Wang, L., L. Li, D. Dai, et al. Label words are anchors: An information flow perspective for understanding in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14160 , 2023.

Li, J., P. Cao, C. Wang, et al. Focus on your question! interpreting and mitigating toxic cot problems in commonsense reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18344 , 2024.

Bai, J., S. Bai, Y . Chu, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 , 2023.

AI@Meta. Llama 3 model card. 2024.

Touvron, H., L. Martin, K. Stone, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 , 2023.

Patel, A., S. Bhattamishra, N. Goyal. Are nlp models really able to solve simple math word problems? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191 , 2021.

Talmor, A., J. Herzig, N. Lourie, et al. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00937 , 2018.

Hendrycks, D., C. Burns, S. Basart, et al. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2021.

Srivastava, A., A. Rastogi, A. Rao, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615 , 2022.

Zhou, D., N. Schärli, L. Hou, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625 , 2022.

Sun, H., X. Li, Y. Xu, et al. Autohint: Automatic prompt optimization with hint generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07415 , 2023.

Wan, X., R. Sun, H. Dai, et al. Better zero-shot reasoning with self-adaptive prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14106 , 2023.

Imani, S., L. Du, H. Shrivastava. Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05398 , 2023.

Zheng, C., Z. Liu, E. Xie, et al. Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09797 , 2023.

Chen, L., J. Chen, T. Goldstein, et al. Instructzero: Efficient instruction optimization for black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03082 , 2023.

Lei, I., Z. Deng. Selfzcot: a self-prompt zero-shot cot from semantic-level to code-level for a better utilization of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11461 , 2023.

Suzgun, M., A. T. Kalai. Meta-prompting: Enhancing language models with task-agnostic scaffolding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12954 , 2024.

A Appendix

A.1 IAP & Baseline Experiments on LLaMA-2-13B-Chat and LLaMA-3 70B

Table 4 and Table 6 are supplementary for Table 1 and Table 2, the results here basically are coincidence with the Experiment section in the main body. Table 5 shows the results of single prompts and IAP-mv to demonstrate the generality for a large LLM. However, the IAP did not obtain salient enhancement, which may caused by the irregular output formats of LLaMA-2.

A.2 Answer Step Recognition

We prepare 3 types of answer formats to recognize the answer step while LLMs reasoning, concretely, employs the regular expression to judge whether the model has just output the answer to the given question. Once we detect some pre-defined patterns, we break the LLM's generation for loop and compute the saliency scores at this time step. We put the recognition formats in Table 7.

A.3 Information Flow Analysis on Other LLMs

In our investigation, we analyzed the information flow with the same method in different LLMs on various datasets and found that the phenomena of saliency scores for all LLMs on most datasets are quite similar, so we put the analysis process of Qwen-14B-Chat on GSM8k to maintain consistency in the narrative subject and present our analysis conclusion. Similarly, the head analysis results for good and bad reasoning are consistent with other LLMs or datasets.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Layers

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

0.0025

0.0030

0.0035

Saliency scores

Question to prompt

Bad prompt

Good prompt

(a)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Layers

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

0.0025

0.0030

Saliency scores

Question to rationale

Bad prompt

Good prompt

(b)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Layers

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

Saliency scores

Prompt to rationale

Bad prompt

Good prompt

(c)

0

2

4

6

8 101214161820222426283032343638

Heads

0

2

4

6

383634323028262422201816141210 8

Layers

question to prompt

(a)

0

2

4

6

8 101214161820222426283032343638

Heads

0

2

4

6

383634323028262422201816141210 8

Layers

question to rationale

(b)

0

2

4

6

8 101214161820222426283032343638

Heads

0

2

4

6

383634323028262422201816141210 8

Layers

prompt to rationale

(c)

A.4 Thresholds and Majority Number

For IAP-ss, we obtain threshold values with regard to distinct LLMs on different training sets, we compute the overall synthesized scores (defined in eq (4) in Section 3) to divide up the good and bad reasoning paths and adopt the thresholds that classify reasoning well. Such as, the threshold of LLaMA-3 8B on GSM8k is 5.5e-6, and the identification of the thresholds of different LLMs on different datasets is the same and it is simple and doesn't not need much time. In practice, we consider reasoning with a value higher than the threshold as good, otherwise bad. We have tried different thresholds, and the best performance is shown in Table 8. As for the IAP-mv, we select

top-k (hyper-parameter, k=3) values and use the majority result as the final result, we also tried other k values and k=3 is the best among all other values with LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct and pick some results on 3 datasets in Table 9.

NeurIPS Paper Checklist

The checklist is designed to encourage best practices for responsible machine learning research, addressing issues of reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. Do not remove the checklist: The papers not including the checklist will be desk rejected. The checklist should follow the references and precede the (optional) supplemental material. The checklist does NOT count towards the page limit.

Please read the checklist guidelines carefully for information on how to answer these questions. For each question in the checklist:

You should answer [Yes] , [No] , or [NA] .

[NA] means either that the question is Not Applicable for that particular paper or the relevant information is Not Available.

Please provide a short (1-2 sentence) justification right after your answer (even for NA).

The checklist answers are an integral part of your paper submission. They are visible to the reviewers, area chairs, senior area chairs, and ethics reviewers. You will be asked to also include it (after eventual revisions) with the final version of your paper, and its final version will be published with the paper.

The reviewers of your paper will be asked to use the checklist as one of the factors in their evaluation. While "[Yes] " is generally preferable to "[No] ", it is perfectly acceptable to answer "[No] " provided a proper justification is given (e.g., "error bars are not reported because it would be too computationally expensive" or "we were unable to find the license for the dataset we used"). In general, answering "[No] " or "[NA] " is not grounds for rejection. While the questions are phrased in a binary way, we acknowledge that the true answer is often more nuanced, so please just use your best judgment and write a justification to elaborate. All supporting evidence can appear either in the main paper or the supplemental material, provided in appendix. If you answer [Yes] to a question, in the justification please point to the section(s) where related material for the question can be found.

IMPORTANT, please:

Delete this instruction block, but keep the section heading 'NeurIPS paper checklist" ,

Keep the checklist subsection headings, questions/answers and guidelines below.

Do not modify the questions and only use the provided macros for your answers .

Claims

Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: Claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope.

Limitations

Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We have discussed the limitations of our work after the Conclusion section.

Theory Assumptions and Proofs

Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: Our paper does not include theoretical results.

Experimental Result Reproducibility

Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We fully disclosed all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper.

5. Open access to data and code

Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?

Answer: [No]

Justification: We will release the codes and data as soon as possible.

6. Experimental Setting/Details

Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We describe the implementation in detail to make it reproductiive.

7. Experiment Statistical Significance

Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We didn't report error bars suitably and we correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments.

8. Experiments Compute Resources

Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provided our employed open-source models and the hardware environments, and we conduct ablation studies to show the time cost of our experiments.

9. Code Of Ethics

Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines ?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We conduct research in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.

10. Broader Impacts

Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: This paper has no social impact of either positive or negative.

11. Safeguards

Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: The data and models are open-source that have a no risk for misuse.

12. Licenses for existing assets

Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited, and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected.

13. New Assets

Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: We release no new assets in this paper.

14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects

Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: We didn't employ any human crowd-sourcing projects in this work.

15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects

Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: The contents of our paper have no risk of leaking out or disclosing.

Peer reviews:
{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis paper explores the inside interactions among three components(i.e., question, prompt, rationale) in zero-shot CoT reasoning through the saliency score analysis, and discover the distinct characteristics of good and bad reasoning in terms of information flow. Based on above findings, the authors propose the IAP - an instance-level adaptive prompting strategy designed to enhance CoT reasoning by selecting an appropriate prompt that can guide LLMs to reason correctly from a given set of prompts for each question. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, the authors conducted extensive experiments on the LLaMA-3 8B, LLaMA-2 13B, and Qwen14B models across Math, Logic, and Commonsense tasks.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n* **The motivation  of this paper is quite intuitive.** Through the example in Figure 1, the authors illustrate that an instance-wise zero-shot CoT prompt is more plausible for better reasoning and may achieve a cap-breaking performance compared to the task-level optimal prompt, which is easy to understand.\n\n* **Using Neuron saliency score to analyze the information flow of the question, prompt, and rationale is innovative and promising.** The authors conduct both qualitative and quantitative analyses on good-bad reasoning instances, discovering different patterns of information flow in good-bad reasoning. They further delve into a deeper analysis from the perspectives of Layer and Head, yielding valuable conclusions.\n\n* **Extensive experiments are conducted to validate the effectiveness of proposed method.** The authors test the proposed IAP and comparison methods on LLaMA-3 8B, LLaMA-2 13B, and Qwen14B across Math, Logic, and Commonsense reasoning tasks.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n* **The  proposed method is not clearly explained, some details are missing.** For instance, in Sequential Substitution (IAP-ss), it is not specified what the corresponding threshold is or how it was obtained. Similarly, in Majority Vote (IAP-mv), there is no explanation provided for how many top maximum scores are preserved. The lack of details in the proposed methods can be quite confusing.\n\n* **The experimental setup is unfair.** For the main \"effective\" method proposed, IAP-mv, which obtains the final results through Majority Vote (similar to self consistency), it is unreasonable to compare it with baselines that only perform inference once. The improvement brought about by this method could very well be the result of ensemble inference from multiple reasoning paths [1][2][3], rather than the strategy implemented by the author's previous good-bad reasoning findings.\n\n* **Some experimental conclusions are missing or somewhat unreasonable.** For instance, in the experiment of Consistency & Complementary, the authors only provide the experimental setup and show the corresponding results in Table 2 without giving any conclusions or analysis. Furthermore, in the analysis experiment for Efficacy, the author demonstrated through Figure 6 that while IAP-ss also incurs additional overhead, its accuracy compared to 0-shot also declines to some extent. Therefore, the conclusion stated by the authors that \"the two IAP strategies can be employed as trade-offs in different demand prioritization applications\" is not in line with the facts, as IAP-ss does not provide any gain compared to the baseline 0-shot.\n\n\n[1] Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifier\n\n[2] Diversity of Thought Improves Reasoning Abilities of LLMs\n\n[3] Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought\n\nQUESTIONS:\nSee weeknesses. \n\nAlthough this paper performs quite well in the section of Information Flow Analysis on Zero-shot CoT, there are numerous flaws in its experiments that fail to convince me.  If the authors can address my concerns, I would consider raising my score.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nI think the authors have addressed their limitations.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-06-25"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThe paper introduces an instance-adaptive prompting algorithm for zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Traditional task-level prompts are insufficient for all instances, so the authors propose a strategy that differentiates good and bad prompts based on information flow from the question to the prompt and rationale. Using neuron saliency score analysis, the study reveals that successful reasoning requires prompts to aggregate semantic information from the question. The proposed instance-adaptive prompting strategy (IAP) demonstrates consistent improvements across multiple reasoning tasks with LLaMA-2, LLaMA-3, and Qwen models.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n- **Comprehensive Analysis**: Uses neuron saliency scores to understand information flow during reasoning.\n- **Innovative Approach**: Tailors prompts to individual instances, improving upon uniform task-level prompts.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n- **Limited Scope of Neuron Saliency Score Analysis**: The neuron saliency score analysis in Section 2 is conducted on only one LLM (not state in paper, personal guess) and one dataset, GSM8K. More evidence and diverse datasets are needed to support this analysis comprehensively. Additionally, Section 2.3, \"Head Analysis,\" lacks a comparative study between good and bad reasoning instances.\n- **Insufficient Experimental Details**: The experimental details provided are not sufficiently clear. Based on lines 263-264, my understanding is that IAP uses 9 different zero-shot CoT prompts to compute the S score. For IAP-ss, the process stops and uses the current result upon encountering the first prompt that meets the threshold. For IAP-mv, results from all 9 prompts are saved, and the top K are used for voting. This raises several questions: 1. How does the performance of IAP-mv compare to directly using a majority vote across the 9 prompt results? 2. What is the distribution of results for each method? For instance, which prompts tend to have higher S scores? This analysis could reveal conclusions such as \"Let’s think step by step\" being more suitable for math questions, while \"Don’t think. Just feel.\" may be better for MMLU, aligning more closely with the instance-wise topic.\n- **Figure 1 Inconsistency**: Figure 1 does not align with the rest of the paper. The figure and its description suggest addressing an overly complex problem, which is not the case in practice.\n- **More Model Variants**: There is a need for experiments on larger model sizes to validate the findings.\n- **Terminology Inconsistency**: The terminology used is inconsistent. In Figure 3, the terms \"Good reasoning\" and \"Bad reasoning\" are used, while in Figure 4, the terms change to \"Good prompt\" and \"Bad prompt.\"\n\nQUESTIONS:\nN/A\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nN/A", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 6, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-07-04"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis paper analyzed the mechanism of the large language models (LLMs) zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, in which the authors found a pattern to discriminate a good reasoning path and a bad one with the saliency scores. Based on the findings, this paper proposed a set of instance-adaptive prompting approaches for zero-shot CoT reasoning. Experimental results on various tasks with distinct LLMs demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed methods, validating the correctness of the findings.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n1. This paper is well-written and easy to follow.\n2. This paper emphasized the instance-level CoT prompting rather than the task-level, providing a novel and fine-grained research object for LLM reasoning, which had not been explored in earlier works.\n3. This work employed an interesting information flow analysis to delve into the mechanism of zero-shot CoT during the LLM inference, encouraging relevant CoT research.\n4. The authors presented two simple yet effective instance-adaptive zero-shot CoT prompting approaches based on elaborative analysis, and empirical results verified their observations.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n1. Experiments only covered 7B and 13/14B models, involving larger model in the experiments would be more marvelous.\n2. In Section 4.3, the authors didn’t interpret the results of consistency and complementary results in detail.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n1. Why did the authors choose the saliency score instead of the widely used attribution score as the information flow analysis method?\n2. What did some results with underlines in Table 1 mean?\n3. Should the colon after the “remains” in the line 44 be removed?\n4. Should the “and” in the “, and Tracking Shuffled Objects …” in line 258 be removed?\n5. In Table 3 in the Appendix, why didn’t the authors highlight the best results and explain the results more?\n\nAll my concerns have been addressed by the authors' rebuttal.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nThe authors have adequately clarified the limitations of this work.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 8, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 4, "DATE": "2024-07-09"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThe authors argue that a single, task-level prompt is insufficient for addressing the diverse needs of different instances within a dataset. To overcome this limitation, they propose an instance-adaptive prompting (IAP) algorithm that differentiates between effective and ineffective prompts for individual instances. The authors also provide a detailed examination of the information flow at different layers and heads of the LLMs, offering insights into the internal mechanisms that contribute to reasoning quality. The proposed IAP strategy is shown to be effective across multiple models and tasks, highlighting its potential for advancing zero-shot reasoning in LLMs.\n\nSTRENGTHS:\n1. The IAP algorithm is a creative solution that addresses the limitations of previous prompt strategy. The originality lies in the adaptive differentiation of prompts for individual instances and the use of information flow analysis to understand and enhance reasoning mechanisms within LLMs.\n\n2. The quality of the experimental design is high, with comprehensive testing across different models and reasoning tasks.\n\nWEAKNESSES:\n1. As the number of available prompts grows, the strategy for selecting the best prompt could become increasingly complex.\n\n2. The titles of some figures are verbose (e.g. Figure 2). Keeping the title concise and giving a detailed explanation of the figures in the main text will make the paper better.\n\nQUESTIONS:\n1. How were the saliency score thresholds determined, how do these thresholds affect the results?\n\n2. In some paragraphs, full stops are missing, for example, at the end of the \"Experiments\" section and at the end of the first paragraph in the \"Preliminary analysis\" section.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nit appears that the authors have made an effort to address the limitations of their work.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 7, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "SOUNDNESS_CORRECTNESS": 3, "DATE": "2024-07-11"}