IC-698GPT-3.5-turbo's CoT reasoning errors are correlated across different demonstration sets, while PoT errors are less correlated

Report a problem with this record

Murong Yue, Jie Zhao, Min Zhang, Liang Du, Ziyu Yao

SourceLarge Language Model Cascades with Mixture of Thought Representations for Cost-Efficient Reasoning

When GPT-3.5-turbo fails on a hard reasoning question under chain-of-thought prompting, re-prompting it with a different set of CoT demonstrations typically yields the same incorrect answer. In contrast, program-of-thought prompting tends to produce a different (or correct) answer. Among cases where CoT fails, 43% are solved by PoT and 57% receive a different wrong answer from PoT. This error-correlation structure is what makes mixing CoT and PoT (MOT) more effective at detecting model uncertainty than either representation alone.

Evidence
correlational
Key metric
43% of CoT-failure cases solved by PoT, 57% different wrong answer from PoT (Appendix D case analysis)
Caveat
The case analysis is illustrative and the 43%/57% split is reported without a formal sample size or confidence interval; the pattern is demonstrated on a subset of hard questions.
Model
GPT-3.5 / ChatGPT-3.5 GPT-3.5-turbo
Concepts
Failure mode
Datasets
GSM8K [eval], Big-Bench Hard [eval], CREPE [eval]
Related work
FrugalGPT [compared-to]
Related findings
IC-699, IC-700
Extraction
automatic-extraction