"Let's Argue Both Sides": Argument Generation Can Force Small Models to Utilize Previously Inaccessible Reasoning Capabilities

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs), despite achieving state-of-the-art results in a number of evaluation tasks, struggle to maintain their performance when logical reasoning is strictly required to correctly infer a prediction. In this work, we propose Argument Generation as a method of forcing models to utilize their reasoning capabilities when other approaches such as chain-of-thought reasoning prove insufficient. Our method involves the generation of arguments for each possible inference result, and asking the end model to rank the generated arguments. We show that Argument Generation can serve as an appropriate substitute for zero-shot prompting techniques without the requirement to add layers of complexity. Furthermore, we argue that knowledge-probing techniques such as chain-of-thought reasoning and Argument Generation are only useful when further reasoning is required to infer a prediction, making them auxiliary to more common zero-shot approaches. Finally, we demonstrate that our approach forces larger gains in smaller language models, showcasing a complex relationship between model size and prompting methods in foundation models.