Beyond Imitation: Learning Key Reasoning Steps from Dual Chain-of-Thoughts in Reasoning Distillation

TL;DR

This paper introduces EDIT, a novel distillation method that improves small language models' ability to learn key reasoning steps from large models by analyzing dual reasoning paths with divergent conclusions.

Contribution

We propose a mistake-driven distillation approach that identifies and emphasizes crucial reasoning steps, enhancing the learning of key reasoning processes in smaller models.

Findings

EDIT improves key reasoning step learning in SLMs

Dual CoTs reveal crucial reasoning steps with divergent conclusions

EDIT outperforms traditional fine-tuning on reasoning benchmarks

Abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) scale up and gain powerful Chain-of-Thoughts (CoTs) reasoning abilities, practical resource constraints drive efforts to distill these capabilities into more compact Smaller Language Models (SLMs). We find that CoTs consist mainly of simple reasoning forms, with a small proportion ($\approx 4.7\%$) of key reasoning steps that truly impact conclusions. However, previous distillation methods typically involve supervised fine-tuning student SLMs only on correct CoTs data produced by teacher LLMs, resulting in students struggling to learn the key reasoning steps, instead imitating the teacher's reasoning forms and making errors or omissions on these steps. To address these issues, drawing an analogy to human learning, where analyzing mistakes according to correct solutions often reveals the crucial steps leading to successes or failures, we propose mistak\textbf{E}-\textbf{D}riven key reason\textbf{I}ng step distilla\textbf{T}ion (\textbf{EDIT}), a novel method that further aids SLMs learning key reasoning steps rather than mere simple fine-tuning. Firstly, to expose these crucial steps in CoTs, we design specific prompts to generate dual CoTs data with similar reasoning paths but divergent conclusions. Then, we apply the minimum edit distance algorithm on the dual CoTs data to locate these key steps and optimize the likelihood of these steps. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of EDIT across both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmark reasoning datasets. Further analysis shows that EDIT can generate high-quality CoTs with more correct key reasoning steps. Notably, we also explore how different mistake patterns affect performance and find that EDIT benefits more from logical errors than from knowledge or mathematical calculation errors in dual CoTs\footnote{Code can be found at \url{https://github.com/C-W-D/EDIT}}.