Branch-Solve-Merge Improves Large Language Model Evaluation and Generation

Paper · arXiv 2310.15123 · Published October 23, 2023
Self-Refinement and Self-ConsistencyNatural Language InferenceTask Planning

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently used for multi-faceted language generation and evaluation tasks that involve satisfying intricate user constraints or taking into account multiple aspects and criteria. However, their performance can fall short, due to the model’s lack of coherence and inability to plan and decompose the problem. We propose BRANCH-SOLVE-MERGE (BSM), a Large Language Model program (Schlag et al., 2023) for tackling such challenging natural language tasks. It consists of branch, solve, and merge modules that are parameterized with specific prompts to the base LLM. These three modules plan a decomposition of the task into multiple parallel sub-tasks, independently solve them, and fuse the solutions to the sub-tasks. We apply our method to the tasks of LLM response evaluation and constrained text generation and evaluate its effectiveness with multiple LLMs, including Vicuna, LLaMA-2-chat, and GPT-4. BSM improves the evaluation correctness and consistency for each LLM by enhancing human-LLM agreement by up to 26%, reducing length and pairwise position biases by up to 50%, and allowing LLaMA- 2-chat to match or outperform GPT-4 on most domains.

However, LLMs still struggle with tasks that have intricate requirements like satisfying a set of constraints or meeting objectives that are, in general, multi-dimensional (e.g., evaluating the quality of generated text against certain diverse criteria). This appears to primarily stem from the model’s lack of self-consistency and inability to plan (Yao et al., 2023b; Bubeck et al., 2023). Recent research has tried to mitigate these limitations by developing iterative methods that involve eliciting reasoning, planning, and refinement, but so far they are still considered as open problems (Bai et al., 2022b; Madaan et al., 2023; Ganguli et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023c; Chen

Our approach is an instance of a Large Language Model program (Schlag et al., 2023; Dohan et al., 2022) and consists of three modules: branch, solve, and merge that are parameterized with specific prompts to an underlying LLM.

Given an arbitrary user task, the ‘branch’ module generates a solution plan by decomposing the task into multiple parallel subtasks, where each sub-task is represented by a unique branch, representing different components required to solve the overall problem. The ‘solve’ module then solves each of these independent subproblems. Finally, the ‘merge’ module fuses the solutions to these sub-problems to generate the overall solution.

Constrained Text Generation. State-of-the-art LLMs struggle with constrained text generation tasks, e.g., the constraint of writing a story that should include several concepts. Models commonly either violate constraints, or else generate text that is incoherent in order to satisfy these constraints

A diagram of a question

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

Does preference optimization undermine conversational grounding in language models? Can smaller specialized models match frontier models on key metrics? Can inference-time computation adaptively substitute for static model capacity? What limits language model accuracy in evaluating ideas? Does augmenting symbolic reasoning improve LLM logical reasoning ability? What prevents language models from performing systematic logical reasoning? How does diversity prevent model convergence on superficial patterns? Does scaling reasoning capability create fundamental tradeoffs in control and reliability? Does intelligent routing among smaller models outperform training larger models? When do simpler collaborative filtering approaches outperform complex LLM recommenders? How do neural networks learn compositional structure from training? Do language models encode knowledge that influences generation, or primarily imitate surface patterns? Can recurrent computation unlock reasoning capabilities that fixed-depth models cannot? What prediction granularity best trains models to generate reliable reasoning? What gaps exist between benchmark performance and real deployment outcomes? How does model capacity affect learning performance on diverse downstream tasks? What prevents LLMs from applying their reasoning knowledge to improve outputs? How should retrieval strategies adapt to multi-step reasoning demands?