Counterfactual reasoning: an analysis of in-context emergence

Large-scale neural language models (LMs) exhibit remarkable performance in in-context learning: the ability to learn and reason the input context on the fly without parameter update. This work studies in-context counterfactual reasoning in language models, that is, to predict the consequences of changes under hypothetical scenarios. We focus on studying a well-defined synthetic setup: a linear regression task that requires noise abduction, where accurate prediction is based on inferring and copying the contextual noise from factual observations. We show that language models are capable of counterfactual reasoning in this controlled setup and provide insights that counterfactual reasoning for a broad class of functions can be reduced to a transformation on in-context observations; we find self-attention, model depth, and data diversity in pre-training drive performance in Transformers. More interestingly, our findings extend beyond regression tasks and show that Transformers can perform noise abduction on sequential data, providing preliminary evidence on the potential for counterfactual story generation. Our code is available under https://github.com/moXmiller/counterfactual-reasoning.git .

Beyond Pattern Recognition: Probing Mental Representations of LMs

Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in solving complex reasoning tasks, particularly when prompted to generate intermediate explanations. However, it remains an open question whether these intermediate reasoning traces represent a dynamic, evolving thought process or merely reflect sophisticated pattern recognition acquired during large scale pre training. Drawing inspiration from human cognition, where reasoning unfolds incrementally as new information is assimilated and internal models are continuously updated, we propose to delve deeper into the mental model of various LMs. We propose a new way to assess the mental modeling of LMs, where they are provided with problem details gradually, allowing each new piece of data to build upon and refine the model's internal representation of the task. We systematically compare this step by step mental modeling strategy with traditional full prompt methods across both text only and vision and text modalities. Experiments on the MathWorld dataset across different model sizes and problem complexities confirm that both text-based LLMs and multimodal LMs struggle to create mental representations, questioning how their internal cognitive processes work.