This is basically the LLM modulo approach recommended by Prof. Subbarao Kambhampati. Interesting but only works mostly for problems that have some math/first degree logic puzzle at their heart. Will fail at improving perf at ARC-AGI for example...
Difficult to mimic reasoning by basic trial and error then hoping for the best:
https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-sam-altman-is-wrong
Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
21–30 of 158 posts
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#22That's not going to work. Garbage in - Garbage out is success-set equivalent to Garbage in - Prolog out.
Garbage is garbage and failure to reason is failure to reason no matter the language. If your LLM can't translate your problem to a Prolog program that solves your problem- Prolog can't solve your problem.
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#23i've come to appreciate, over the past 2 years of heavy Prolog use, that all coding should be (eventually) be done in Prolog. It's one of few languages that is simultaneously a standalone logical formalism, and a standalone representation of computation. (With caveats and exceptions, I know). So a Prolog program can stand in as a document of all facts, rules and relations that a person/organization understands/declar…
So why Prolog in particular and not another logic language like Mercury or Oz/Mozart etc?
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#24That's not going to work. Garbage in - Garbage out is success-set equivalent to Garbage in - Prolog out. Garbage is garbage and failure to reason is failure to reason no matter the language. If your LLM can't translate your problem to a Prolog program that solves your problem- Prolog can't solve your problem.
This is a shallow critique that does not engage with the core idea. Specifying the problem is not the same as solving the problem.
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#25Would Creating a prolog dataset would be beneficial, so that future LLM's can be trained on it and then they would be able to output prolog code.
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#26You're telling me the seemingly arbitrary 6 weeks of Prolog on my comp sci course 11yrs ago is suddenly about to be relevant? I did not see this one coming . . .
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#27I think this general idea is going to be the key to really making LLMs widely useful for solving real problems.
I’ve been playing with using GPT-4 together with the Wolfram Alpha plugin, and the combo of the two can reliably solve difficult quantitative problems that neither can individually by working together, much like a human using a calculator.
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#28You're telling me the seemingly arbitrary 6 weeks of Prolog on my comp sci course 11yrs ago is suddenly about to be relevant? I did not see this one coming . . .
Is there any need to look at this generated Prolog code?
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#29I always thought that Prolog is great for reasoning in the semantic web. It doesn't surprise me that LLM people stumble on it.
Re: Use Prolog to improve LLM's reasoning
#30An application I am developing for a customer needed to read constraints around clinical trials and essentially build a query from them. Constraints involve prior treatments, biomarkers, type of disease (cancers) etc.
Using just an LLM did not produce reliable queries, despite trying many many prompts, so being an old Prolog hacker I wondered if using it might impose more 'logic' on the LLM. So we precede the textual description of the constraints with the following prompt:
-------------
Now consider the following Prolog predicates:
biomarker(Name, Status) where Status will be one of the following integers -
Wildtype = 0 Mutated = 1 Methylated = 2 Unmethylated = 3 Amplified = 4 Deleted = 5 Positive = 6 Negative = 7
tumor(Name, Status) where Status will be one of the following integers if know else left unbound -
Newly diagnosed = 1 Recurrence = 2 Metastasized = 3 Progression = 4
chemo(Name)
surgery(Name) Where Name may be an unbound variable
other_treatment(Name)
radiation(Name) Where Name may be an unbound variable
Assume you are given predicate atMost(T, N) where T is a compound term and N is an integer. It will return true if the number of 'occurences' of T is less than or equal N else it will fail.
Assume you are given a predicate atLeastOneOf(L) where L is a list of compound terms. It will succeed if at least one of the compound terms, when executed as a predicate returns true.
Assume you are given a predicate age(Min, Max) which will return true if the patient's age is in between Min and Max.
Assume you have a predicate not(T) which returns true if predicate T evaluates false and vice versa. i.e. rather than '\\+ A' use not(A).
Do not implement the above helper functions.
VERY IMPORTANT: Use 'atLeastOneOf()' whenever you would otherwise use ';' to represent 'OR'. i.e. rather than 'A ; B' use atLeastOneOf([A, B]).
EXAMPLE INPUT: Patient must have recurrent GBM, methylated MGMT and wildtype EGFR. Patient must not have mutated KRAS.
EXAMPLE OUTPUT: tumor('gbm', 2), biomarker('MGMT', 2), biomarker('EGFR', 0), not(biomarker('KRAS', 1))
------------------
The Prolog predicates, when evaluated generate the required underlying query (of course the Prolog is itself a form of query).
Anyway - the upshot was a vast improvement in the accuracy of the generated query (I've yet to see a bad one). Somewhere in its bowels, being told to generate Prolog 'focused' the LLM. Perhaps LLMs are happier with declarative languages rather than imperative ones (I know I am :) ).