A Tree of Thoughts approach to LLMs suggests we have only scratched the surface of their power.

 

In a new paper by Long from Theta Labs 'Large Language Model Guided Tree-ofThought', Long hypothesises that there are two main contributing factors which limits the problem solving ability of LLMs:

Lack of long-term planning: LLMs are trained on massive datasets of text and code, but this data is typically organized in a linear fashion. This means that LLMs are not well-equipped to handle tasks that require long-term planning and strategic thinking.

Inability to explore multiple solutions: LLMs typically generate solutions to problems by following a single path. This means that they are not able to explore multiple possible solutions and choose the best one.

We believe that these two factors can be addressed by training LLMs on data that is organized in a more hierarchical fashion. This would allow LLMs to learn how to plan for the future and explore multiple possible solutions to problems.

So What is a Tree of Thoughts?

The Tree of Thoughts framework is a way of organising and representing knowledge that can be used to solve problems. It is based on the idea that all knowledge can be represented as a tree, with the root node representing the problem to be solved, and the leaves representing the possible solutions. The branches of the tree represent the different steps that need to be taken to solve the problem.

This framework can be used to translate classical insights about problem-solving into actionable methods for contemporary LMs. Classical problem-solving methods typically involve breaking down the problem into smaller subproblems, solving the subproblems, and then combining the solutions to the subproblems to solve the original problem. The Tree of Thoughts framework provides a way to do this in a systematic and organized way.

At the same time, LMs address a weakness of these classical methods, providing a way to solve complex problems that are not easily formalised, such as creative writing. Classical problem-solving methods are typically based on logic and reasoning, and they can be difficult to apply to problems that are not easily represented in this way. LMs, on the other hand, can be used to generate creative solutions to problems by exploring different possibilities and combinations of ideas.

Here is an example of how the Tree of Thoughts framework can be used to solve a problem. Let's say you want to write a story about a character who is lost in a forest. You could start by creating a tree with the root node "Lost in Forest." The first branch could be "Character is lost." The second branch could be "Character is scared." The third branch could be "Character is trying to find their way out." The leaves of the tree could be different possible solutions to the problem, such as "Character finds a path out of the forest," "Character meets a friendly animal who helps them find their way out," or "Character gets rescued by a search party."

Once you have created the tree, you can start to explore different possibilities and combinations of ideas. For example, you could start by generating a list of all the possible ways that the character could get lost in the forest. Then, you could start to brainstorm different ways that the character could find their way out of the forest. Once you have a few different ideas, you can start to flesh them out and write a story.

The paper from Long compliments another on ToT I've recently come across, 'Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models', from: Yao, Yu, Zhao, Shafran, Griffiths, Cao and Narasimhan. 

What these two papers found, was somewhat remarkable: a 10x efficiency of answers for certain tasks. 

The deliberate Solving paper contains a warning at the end though, prior to the conclusion:

'ToT is a framework that empowers LMs to more autonomously and intelligently make decisions and solve problems. While current tasks are limited to reasoning and search problems, future applications involving interaction with external environments or humans could bring potential danger, e.g. facilitating harmful uses of LMs. On the other hand, ToT also improves the interpretability of model decisions and the opportunity for human alignment, as the resulting representations are readable, high-level language reasoning instead of implicit, low-level token values.'

It would seem, as tools like AutoGPT have already indicated, we are still only at an early stage of maximising the potential of the current set of LLMs that exist.