GPT-3.5、GPT-4还是BARD?零样本环境下LLM推理能力评估及提示提升

Jessica López Espejel, El Hassane Ettifouri, Mahaman Sanoussi Yahaya Alassan, El Mehdi Chouham, Walid Dahhane
{"title":"GPT-3.5、GPT-4还是BARD?零样本环境下LLM推理能力评估及提示提升","authors":"Jessica López Espejel,&nbsp;El Hassane Ettifouri,&nbsp;Mahaman Sanoussi Yahaya Alassan,&nbsp;El Mehdi Chouham,&nbsp;Walid Dahhane","doi":"10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance on various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, there is a current hot debate regarding their reasoning capacity. In this paper, we examine the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and BARD models, by performing a thorough technical evaluation on different reasoning tasks across eleven distinct datasets. Our paper provides empirical evidence showcasing the superior performance of ChatGPT-4 in comparison to both ChatGPT-3.5 and BARD in zero-shot setting throughout almost all evaluated tasks. While the superiority of GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5 might be explained by its larger size and NLP efficiency, this was not evident for BARD. We also demonstrate that the three models show limited proficiency in Inductive, Mathematical, and Multi-hop Reasoning Tasks. To bolster our findings, we present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the results from these three models. Furthermore, we propose a set of engineered prompts that enhances the zero-shot setting performance of all three models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100944,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Processing Journal","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100032"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or BARD? Evaluating LLMs reasoning ability in zero-shot setting and performance boosting through prompts\",\"authors\":\"Jessica López Espejel,&nbsp;El Hassane Ettifouri,&nbsp;Mahaman Sanoussi Yahaya Alassan,&nbsp;El Mehdi Chouham,&nbsp;Walid Dahhane\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance on various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, there is a current hot debate regarding their reasoning capacity. In this paper, we examine the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and BARD models, by performing a thorough technical evaluation on different reasoning tasks across eleven distinct datasets. Our paper provides empirical evidence showcasing the superior performance of ChatGPT-4 in comparison to both ChatGPT-3.5 and BARD in zero-shot setting throughout almost all evaluated tasks. While the superiority of GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5 might be explained by its larger size and NLP efficiency, this was not evident for BARD. We also demonstrate that the three models show limited proficiency in Inductive, Mathematical, and Multi-hop Reasoning Tasks. To bolster our findings, we present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the results from these three models. Furthermore, we propose a set of engineered prompts that enhances the zero-shot setting performance of all three models.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Language Processing Journal\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100032\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Language Processing Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949719123000298\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language Processing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949719123000298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型语言模型(LLM)在各种自然语言处理(NLP)任务中表现出了显著的性能。然而,关于他们的推理能力,目前存在着激烈的争论。在本文中,我们通过对11个不同数据集的不同推理任务进行彻底的技术评估,来检查GPT-3.5、GPT-4和BARD模型的性能。我们的论文提供了经验证据,表明在几乎所有评估任务中,与ChatGPT-3.5和BARD相比,ChatGPT-4在零样本设置中具有优异的性能。虽然GPT-4与GPT-3.5相比的优势可以用其更大的尺寸和NLP效率来解释,但这对BARD来说并不明显。我们还证明了这三个模型在归纳、数学和多跳推理任务方面的熟练程度有限。为了支持我们的发现,我们对这三个模型的结果进行了详细而全面的分析。此外,我们提出了一组工程提示,以增强所有三个模型的零样本设置性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or BARD? Evaluating LLMs reasoning ability in zero-shot setting and performance boosting through prompts

GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or BARD? Evaluating LLMs reasoning ability in zero-shot setting and performance boosting through prompts

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance on various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. However, there is a current hot debate regarding their reasoning capacity. In this paper, we examine the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and BARD models, by performing a thorough technical evaluation on different reasoning tasks across eleven distinct datasets. Our paper provides empirical evidence showcasing the superior performance of ChatGPT-4 in comparison to both ChatGPT-3.5 and BARD in zero-shot setting throughout almost all evaluated tasks. While the superiority of GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5 might be explained by its larger size and NLP efficiency, this was not evident for BARD. We also demonstrate that the three models show limited proficiency in Inductive, Mathematical, and Multi-hop Reasoning Tasks. To bolster our findings, we present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the results from these three models. Furthermore, we propose a set of engineered prompts that enhances the zero-shot setting performance of all three models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信