Understanding LLM Scientific Reasoning through Promptings and Model's Explanation on the Answers
Authors:
Alice Rueda,
Mohammed S. Hassan,
Argyrios Perivolaris,
Bazen G. Teferra,
Reza Samavi,
Sirisha Rambhatla,
Yuqi Wu,
Yanbo Zhang,
Bo Cao,
Divya Sharma,
Sridhar Krishnan Venkat Bhat
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving across various domains. However, their ability to perform complex, multi-step reasoning task-essential for applications in science, medicine, and law-remains an area of active investigation. This paper examines the reasoning capabilities of contemporary LLMs, ana…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving across various domains. However, their ability to perform complex, multi-step reasoning task-essential for applications in science, medicine, and law-remains an area of active investigation. This paper examines the reasoning capabilities of contemporary LLMs, analyzing their strengths, limitations, and potential for improvement. The study uses prompt engineering techniques on the Graduate-Level GoogleProof Q&A (GPQA) dataset to assess the scientific reasoning of GPT-4o. Five popular prompt engineering techniques and two tailored promptings were tested: baseline direct answer (zero-shot), chain-of-thought (CoT), zero-shot CoT, self-ask, self-consistency, decomposition, and multipath promptings. Our findings indicate that while LLMs exhibit emergent reasoning abilities, they often rely on pattern recognition rather than true logical inference, leading to inconsistencies in complex problem-solving. The results indicated that self-consistency outperformed the other prompt engineering technique with an accuracy of 52.99%, followed by direct answer (52.23%). Zero-shot CoT (50%) outperformed multipath (48.44%), decomposition (47.77%), self-ask (46.88%), and CoT (43.75%). Self-consistency performed the second worst in explaining the answers. Simple techniques such as direct answer, CoT, and zero-shot CoT have the best scientific reasoning. We propose a research agenda aimed at bridging these gaps by integrating structured reasoning frameworks, hybrid AI approaches, and human-in-the-loop methodologies. By critically evaluating the reasoning mechanisms of LLMs, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on the future of artificial general intelligence and the development of more robust, trustworthy AI systems.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
Identifying leading indicators of product recalls from online reviews using positive unlabeled learning and domain adaptation
Authors:
Shreesh Kumara Bhat,
Aron Culotta
Abstract:
Consumer protection agencies are charged with safeguarding the public from hazardous products, but the thousands of products under their jurisdiction make it challenging to identify and respond to consumer complaints quickly. From the consumer's perspective, online reviews can provide evidence of product defects, but manually sifting through hundreds of reviews is not always feasible. In this pape…
▽ More
Consumer protection agencies are charged with safeguarding the public from hazardous products, but the thousands of products under their jurisdiction make it challenging to identify and respond to consumer complaints quickly. From the consumer's perspective, online reviews can provide evidence of product defects, but manually sifting through hundreds of reviews is not always feasible. In this paper, we propose a system to mine Amazon.com reviews to identify products that may pose safety or health hazards. Since labeled data for this task are scarce, our approach combines positive unlabeled learning with domain adaptation to train a classifier from consumer complaints submitted to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. On a validation set of manually annotated Amazon product reviews, we find that our approach results in an absolute F1 score improvement of 8% over the best competing baseline. Furthermore, we apply the classifier to Amazon reviews of known recalled products; the classifier identifies reviews reporting safety hazards prior to the recall date for 45% of the products. This suggests that the system may be able to provide an early warning system to alert consumers to hazardous products before an official recall is announced.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2017;
originally announced March 2017.
