FinePrompt: Unveiling the Role of Finetuned Inductive Bias on Compositional Reasoning in GPT-4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compositional reasoning across texts has been a long-standing challenge in natural language processing. With large language models like GPT-4 taking over the field, prompting techniques such as chain-of-thought (CoT) were proposed to unlock compositional, multi-step reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Despite their success, the prompts demand significant human effort to discover and validate them. Our work draws attention to the idea of transferring task-specific inductive biases from finetuned models to prompts, as a way of improving GPT-4’s compositional reasoning capabilities. To leverage these inductive biases, we formulate prompt templates to ease the transfer of inductive biases. The experimental results on multi-hop question answering and numerical reasoning over text show that our proposed prompt scheme shows competitive zero-shot and few-shot performances compared to existing prompts on complicated reasoning tasks, highlighting the importance of adopting the validated biases of the previous paradigm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".