Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of “tit for tat” and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of “tit for tat” state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in general scenarios, exhibiting a level of aptitude that approaches, in some aspects even surpasses, human-level intelligence. Among their numerous skills, the translation abilities of LLMs have received considerable attention. Compared to typical machine translation that focuses solely on source-to-target mapping, LLM-based translation can potentially mimic the human translation process, which might take preparatory steps to ensure high-quality translation. This work explores this possibility by proposing the MAPS framework, which stands for Multi-Aspect Prompting and Selection. Specifically, we enable LLMs first to analyze the given source sentence and induce three aspects of translation-related knowledge (keywords, topics, and relevant demonstrations) to guide the final translation process. Moreover, we employ a selection mechanism based on quality estimation to filter out noisy and unhelpful knowledge. Both automatic (3 LLMs × 11 directions × 2 automatic metrics) and human evaluation (preference study and MQM) demonstrate the effectiveness of MAPS. Further analysis shows that by mimicking the human translation process, MAPS reduces various translation errors such as hallucination, ambiguity, mistranslation, awkward style, untranslated text, and omission. Source code is available at https://github.com/zwhe99/MAPS-mt.

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to critique and refine their reasoning is crucial for their application in evaluation, feedback provision, and self-improvement. This paper introduces CriticBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess LLMs’ abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning across a variety of tasks. CriticBench encompasses five reasoning domains: mathematical, commonsense, symbolic, coding, and algorithmic. It compiles 15 datasets and incorporates responses from three LLM families. Utilizing CriticBench, we evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning, i.e., GQC reasoning. Our findings reveal: (1) a linear relationship in GQC capabilities, with critique-focused training markedly enhancing performance; (2) a task-dependent variation in correction effectiveness, with logic-oriented tasks being more amenable to correction; (3) GQC knowledge inconsistencies that decrease as model size increases; and (4) an intriguing inter-model critiquing dynamic, where stronger models are better at critiquing weaker ones, while weaker models can surprisingly surpass stronger ones in their self-critique. We hope these insights into the nuanced critique-correct reasoning of LLMs will foster further research in LLM critique and self-improvement.

Neural machine translation (NMT) systems often produce inadequate translations for named entities. In this study, we conducted preliminary experiments to examine the factors affecting the translation accuracy of named entities, specifically focusing on their translation difficulty and context diversity. Based on our observations, we propose a novel data augmentation strategy to enhance the accuracy of named entity translation. The main concept behind our approach is to increase both the context diversity and translation probability for the targeted named entity pair. To achieve this, we construct additional samples for named entities that exhibit high translation difficulty or low context diversity and use the augmented training data to re-train the final translation model. Furthermore, we propose an entity-aware machine translation metric that prefers the translation output to generate more accurate named entities. Our experimental results demonstrate significant improvements over the baseline in terms of general translation performance and named entity translation accuracy across various test sets, such as WMT news translation and terminology test sets.

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have exhibited remarkable abilities on a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, including various machine translation abilities accomplished during chat. However, these models are only accessible through restricted APIs, which creates barriers to new research and advancements in the field. Therefore, we propose ParroT, a framework to enhance and regulate the translation abilities during chat based on open-source LLMs (e.g., LLaMA), human-written translation and feedback data. Specifically, ParroT reformulates translation data into the instruction-following style, and introduces a “Hint” field for incorporating extra requirements to regulate the translation process. Accordingly, we propose three instruction types for finetuning ParroT models, including translation instruction, contrastive instruction, and error-guided instruction. Experiments on Flores subsets and WMT22 test sets suggest that translation instruction improves the translation performance of vanilla LLMs significantly while error-guided instruction can lead to further improvement, which demonstrates the importance of learning from low-quality translations annotated by humans. We also demonstrate the potential of automatic evaluation tools in providing quality information of translations, when constructing error-guided instructions for directions that lack human annotation data. Please refer to our Github project for more implementation details: https://github.com/wxjiao/ParroT.