Can Hallucinations Be Useful? Solving Multi-Hop Questions With SLMs By Chaining System-I/II Reasoning
Quick Take
This study explores using hallucinations in SLMs to enhance multi-hop question answering through a novel reasoning approach.
Key Points
- SLMs show promise but often hallucinate more than LLMs.
- Initial answers can be accurate, making hallucinations useful.
- Proposed method combines quick answers with deeper reasoning.
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2605. 27596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recently, there has been increased interest in Small Language Models (SLMs), which are fast, show good performance, and have lower hardware demands than large language models (LLMs). However, SLMs hallucinate more frequently than LLMs, impacting their ability to solve complex multi-step reasoning problems as early mistakes cascade to the final response. To address this, existing works think-first followed by iterative retrieval to reduce hallucination.
We argue that the think-first strategy is not always necessary as we find that: (i) SLMs are often accurately confident in their initial answer and, (ii) hallucinations can actually be beneficial for honing in on the true answer. As such, we position our work as an inversion of this strategy, i. e. , answer first-reason later.
We propose a cognitively-inspired framework where the model is first allowed to quickly answer the question (System-I (zero-shot)) and then resorts to deeper thinking (System-II) based on evidence retrieved from a knowledge source using the initial hypothesis. By combining System-I and System-II style thinking, we show that our method can outperform prior work that takes the traditional think-first route on various multi-step question-answering benchmarks.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.