arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2302.06706cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
收藏

关于大语言模型的规划能力(一个批判性的研究和一个建议的基准)

On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models (A Critical Investigation with a Proposed Benchmark)

Arizona State University(亚利桑那州立大学);Colorado State University(科罗拉多州立大学)

Karthik Valmeekam, Sarath Sreedharan, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo, Subbarao Kambhampati

摘要:

感兴趣的索赔紧急推理能力的LLM训练一般的Web语料库,在本文中,我们着手调查他们的规划能力。我们的目标是评估(1)LLM本身在常识规划任务(人类通常非常擅长的类型)中生成和验证简单计划的效果如何,以及(2)LLM在其他代理(AI规划者或人类规划者)的启发式指导来源中的效果如何。为了系统地而不是以轶事的方式调查这些问题,我们首先根据国际规划竞赛中采用的领域类型开发了一个基准套件。在这个基准测试中,我们以三种模式评估LLM:自主,启发式和人在回路。我们的研究结果表明,LLM的自主生成可执行计划的能力是相当微薄的,平均只有约3%的成功率。启发式和人在回路模式显示出更大的希望。除了这些结果,我们还提供了我们的基准和评估工具,以支持研究界的调查。

英文摘要:

Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) how good LLMs are by themselves in generating and validating simple plans in commonsense planning tasks (of the type that humans are generally quite good at) and (2) how good LLMs are in being a source of heuristic guidance for other agents--either AI planners or human planners--in their planning tasks. To investigate these questions in a systematic rather than anecdotal manner, we start by developing a benchmark suite based on the kinds of domains employed in the International Planning Competition. On this benchmark, we evaluate LLMs in three modes: autonomous, heuristic and human-in-the-loop. Our results show that LLM's ability to autonomously generate executable plans is quite meager, averaging only about 3% success rate. The heuristic and human-in-the-loop modes show slightly more promise. In addition to these results, we also make our benchmark and evaluation tools available to support investigations by research community.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑