Date
Publisher
arXiv
This paper introduces MalAlgoQA, a novel dataset designed to evaluate the counterfactual reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) through a pedagogical approach. The dataset comprises mathematics and reading comprehension questions, each accompanied by four answer choices and their corresponding rationales. At the heart of MalAlgoQA are ``malgorithms'' - rationales behind incorrect answer choices that represent flawed yet logically coherent reasoning paths. These malgorithms serve as counterfactual scenarios, allowing us to assess an LLM's ability to identify and analyze flawed reasoning patterns. We propose the Malgorithm Identification task, where LLMs are assessed based on their ability to identify corresponding malgorithm given an incorrect answer choice. To evaluate the model performance, we introduce two metrics: Algorithm Identification Accuracy (AIA) for correct answer rationale identification, and Malgorithm Identification Accuracy (MIA) for incorrect answer rationale identification. Our experiments reveal that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant performance drops in MIA compared to AIA, highlighting the challenges in counterfactual reasoning. Surprisingly, we find that the chain-of-thought prompting technique not only fails to consistently enhance MIA but can sometimes lead to underperformance compared to simple prompting. These findings have important implications for developing LLMs with improved counterfactual reasoning, particularly relevant for AI-powered tutoring systems, where identifying and addressing student misconceptions is essential. MalAlgoQA dataset is available \href{this https URL}{here}.
Study at a glance
- Question: How well can AI models identify the flawed reasoning behind incorrect answers in math and reading?
- Setting and data: Mathematics and reading comprehension questions, each with four answer choices and their corresponding rationales.
- Method: Tests how well AI models identify correct and flawed reasoning paths for multiple-choice questions.
Why it matters
For AI-powered tutoring systems, identifying and addressing student misconceptions is essential. This requires evaluating large language models on counterfactual reasoning, specifically their ability to identify and analyze flawed yet logically coherent reasoning patterns.
Key findings
- On mathematics and reading comprehension questions, leading AI models were significantly less accurate at identifying rationales for incorrect answers than for correct ones.
- State-of-the-art language models faced significant challenges with counterfactual reasoning when identifying flawed yet logically coherent paths behind incorrect choices.
- Step-by-step reasoning prompts failed to consistently improve model identification of flawed thinking and sometimes performed worse than simple prompts.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Study design
