The performance of large language models (LLMs) on existing reasoning benchmarks has significantly improved over the past years. In response, we present JEEBench, a considerably more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of LLMs. We curate 515 challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the highly competitive IIT JEE-Advanced exam. Long-horizon reasoning on top of deep in-domain knowledge is essential for solving problems in this benchmark. Our evaluation on various open-source and proprietary models reveals that the highest performance, even after using techniques like self-consistency, self-refinement and chain-of-thought prompting, is less than 40%. The typical failure modes of GPT-4, the best model, are errors in algebraic manipulation, difficulty in grounding abstract concepts into mathematical equations accurately and failure in retrieving relevant domain-specific concepts. We also observe that by mere prompting, GPT-4 is unable to assess risk introduced by negative marking for incorrect answers. For this, we develop a post-hoc confidence-thresholding method over self-consistency, which enables effective response selection. We hope that our challenging benchmark will guide future re-search in problem-solving using LLMs.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the capacity to comprehend the mental states of distinct individuals, is essential for numerous practical applications. With the development of large language models (LLMs), there is a heated debate about whether they are able to perform ToM tasks. Previous studies have used different tasks and prompts to test the ToM on LLMs and the results are inconsistent: some studies asserted these models are capable of exhibiting ToM, while others suggest the opposite. In this study, We present ToMChallenges, a dataset for comprehensively evaluating the Theory of Mind based on the Sally-Anne and Smarties tests with a diverse set of tasks. In addition, we also propose an auto-grader to streamline the answer evaluation process. We tested three models: davinci, turbo, and gpt-4. Our evaluation results and error analyses show that LLMs have inconsistent behaviors across prompts and tasks. Performing the ToM tasks robustly remains a challenge for the LLMs. In addition, our paper wants to raise awareness in evaluating the ToM in LLMs and we want to invite more discussion on how to design the prompts and tasks for ToM tasks that can better assess the LLMs' ability.

Despite outstanding performance in many tasks, language models are notoriously inclined to make factual errors in tasks requiring arithmetic computation. We address this deficiency by creating Calc-X, a collection of datasets that demonstrates the appropriate use of a calculator in reasoning chains. Calc-X is suitable for teaching language models to offload computations to a symbolic system. We survey and unify several existing chain-of-thought datasets into a proposed format, resulting in a standard collection of over 300,000 samples requiring arithmetic reasoning. Finally, we use the new Calc-X collection to train open-source calculator-using models we call Calcformers and show that these models approximately double the accuracy of generating correct results compared to vanilla language model baselines. We make all Calc-X datasets, source code and Calcformers models publicly available.

In the context of multi-step reasoning, e.g., with chain-of-thought, language models (LMs) can easily assign a high likelihood to incorrect steps. As a result, decoding strategies that optimize for solution likelihood often yield incorrect solutions. To address this issue, we propose Guiding chain-of-thought ReAsoning with a CorrectnEss Discriminator (GRACE), a stepwise decoding approach that steers the decoding process towards producing correct reasoning steps. GRACE employs a discriminator trained with a contrastive loss over correct and incorrect steps, which is used during decoding to score next-step candidates based on their correctness. Importantly, GRACE only requires sampling from the LM, without the need for LM training or fine-tuning. Using models from FLAN-T5 and LLaMA families, we evaluate GRACE over four math and two symbolic reasoning tasks, where it exhibits substantial performance gains compared to greedy decoding, verifiers, and self-consistency in most settings. When further combined with self-consistency, GRACE outperforms all the baselines by sizeable margins. Human and LLM evaluations over GSM8K show that GRACE not only improves the final answer accuracy but also the correctness of the intermediate reasoning. Our implementation can be accessed at \url{https://github.com/mukhal/grace}.

While automatic dialogue tutors hold great potential in making education personalized and more accessible, research on such systems has been hampered by a lack of sufficiently large and high-quality datasets. Collecting such datasets remains challenging, as recording tutoring sessions raises privacy concerns and crowdsourcing leads to insufficient data quality. To address this, we propose a framework to generate such dialogues by pairing human teachers with a Large Language Model (LLM) prompted to represent common student errors. We describe how we use this framework to collect MathDial, a dataset of 3k one-to-one teacher-student tutoring dialogues grounded in multi-step math reasoning problems. While models like GPT-3 are good problem solvers, they fail at tutoring because they generate factually incorrect feedback or are prone to revealing solutions to students too early. To overcome this, we let teachers provide learning opportunities to students by guiding them using various scaffolding questions according to a taxonomy of teacher moves. We demonstrate MathDial and its extensive annotations can be used to finetune models to be more effective tutors (and not just solvers). We confirm this by automatic and human evaluation, notably in an interactive setting that measures the trade-off between student solving success and telling solutions. The dataset is released publicly.

Current scientific fact-checking benchmarks exhibit several shortcomings, such as biases arising from crowd-sourced claims and an over-reliance on text-based evidence. We present SCITAB, a challenging evaluation dataset consisting of 1.2K expert-verified scientific claims that 1) originate from authentic scientific publications and 2) require compositional reasoning for verification. The claims are paired with evidence-containing scientific tables annotated with labels. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that SCITAB poses a significant challenge to state-of-the-art models, including table-based pretraining models and large language models. All models except GPT-4 achieved performance barely above random guessing. Popular prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought, do not achieve much performance gains on SCITAB. Our analysis uncovers several unique challenges posed by SCITAB, including table grounding, claim ambiguity, and compositional reasoning. Our codes and data are publicly available at https://github.com/XinyuanLu00/SciTab.

We introduce CoEdIT, a state-of-the-art text editing system for writing assistance. CoEdIT takes instructions from the user specifying the attributes of the desired text, such as "Make the sentence simpler" or "Write it in a more neutral style," and outputs the edited text. We present a large language model fine-tuned on a diverse collection of task-specific instructions for text editing (a total of 82K instructions). Our model (1) achieves state-of-the-art performance on various text editing benchmarks, (2) is competitive with publicly available largest-sized LLMs trained on instructions while being nearly 60x smaller, (3) is capable of generalizing to unseen edit instructions, and (4) exhibits abilities to generalize to composite instructions containing different combinations of edit actions. Through extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis, we show that writers prefer the edits suggested by CoEdIT relative to other state-of-the-art text editing models. Our code, data, and models are publicly available at https://github.com/vipulraheja/coedit.

Language models (LMs) that jointly generate end-task answers as well as free-text rationales are known as self-rationalization models. Recent works demonstrate great performance gain for self-rationalization by few-shot prompting LMs with rationale-augmented exemplars. However, the ability to benefit from explanations only emerges with large-scale LMs, which have poor accessibility. In this work, we explore the less-studied setting of leveraging explanations for small LMs to improve few-shot self-rationalization. We first revisit the relationship between rationales and answers. Inspired by the implicit mental process of how human beings assess explanations, we present a novel approach, Zero-shot Augmentation of Rationale-Answer pairs (ZARA), to automatically construct pseudo-parallel data for self-training by reducing the problem of plausibility judgement to natural language inference. Experimental results show ZARA achieves SOTA performance on the FEB benchmark, for both the task accuracy and the explanation metric. In addition, we conduct human and quantitative evaluation validating ZARA's ability to automatically identify plausible and accurate rationale-answer pairs.

Pretrained language models have improved zero-shot text classification by allowing the transfer of semantic knowledge from the training data in order to classify among specific label sets in downstream tasks. We propose a simple way to further improve zero-shot accuracies with minimal effort. We curate small finetuning datasets intended to describe the labels for a task. Unlike typical finetuning data, which has texts annotated with labels, our data simply describes the labels in language, e.g., using a few related terms, dictionary/encyclopedia entries, and short templates. Across a range of topic and sentiment datasets, our method is more accurate than zero-shot by 17-19% absolute. It is also more robust to choices required for zero-shot classification, such as patterns for prompting the model to classify and mappings from labels to tokens in the model's vocabulary. Furthermore, since our data merely describes the labels but does not use input texts, finetuning on it yields a model that performs strongly on multiple text domains for a given label set, even improving over few-shot out-of-domain classification in multiple settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. Due to rapid technological advances and their extreme versatility, LLMs nowadays have millions of users and are at the cusp of being the main go-to technology for information retrieval, content generation, problem-solving, etc. Therefore, it is of great importance to thoroughly assess and scrutinize their capabilities. Due to increasingly complex and novel behavioral patterns in current LLMs, this can be done by treating them as participants in psychology experiments that were originally designed to test humans. For this purpose, the paper introduces a new field of research called "machine psychology". The paper outlines how different subfields of psychology can inform behavioral tests for LLMs. It defines methodological standards for machine psychology research, especially by focusing on policies for prompt designs. Additionally, it describes how behavioral patterns discovered in LLMs are to be interpreted. In sum, machine psychology aims to discover emergent abilities in LLMs that cannot be detected by most traditional natural language processing benchmarks.