Length generalization (LG) is a challenging problem in learning to reason. It refers to the phenomenon that when trained on reasoning problems of smaller lengths or sizes, the resulting model struggles with problems of larger sizes or lengths. Although LG has been studied by many researchers, the challenge remains. This paper proposes a theoretical study of LG for problems whose reasoning processes can be modeled as DAGs (directed acyclic graphs). The paper first identifies and proves the conditions under which LG can be achieved in learning to reason. It then designs problem representations based on the theory to learn to solve challenging reasoning problems like parity, addition, and multiplication, using a Transformer to achieve perfect LG.

With the increasing use of robots in tasks involving humans in the perception-action loop, understanding the reasons behind failures in both planning and execution is a significant challenge for enhancing the reliability, adaptability, and safety of autonomous systems. Robots need to comprehend why and when failures occur and devise appropriate solutions based on the current situation. To achieve this, robots should be equipped with robust planning, perception, and reasoning capabilities enabling them to analyze failures and propose recovery strategies in real time. The standard approaches to autonomous robots are typically model-based or policy-based [3]. Model-based approaches can involve offline planning, where the robot considers the current state and utilizes its model to predict the next state and potential rewards, enabling it to plan a sequence of actions expected to maximize reward. In online model-based planning instead, the robot continuously re-plans based on the current state, adjusting its actions in response to changes in the environment. Policy-based approaches usually entail either open-loop policy, where the robot predicts a sequence of actions based on the initial state and goal, or closed-loop policy, where the robot predicts individual actions at each moment based on the current state and goal.

Conceptual reasoning, the ability to reason in abstract and high-level perspectives, is key to generalization in human cognition. However, limited study has been done on large language models' capability to perform conceptual reasoning. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions and generate solutions in a verifiable symbolic space. Using this framework as an analytical tool, we show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks compared to direct inference methods. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making. We propose two techniques to add trustworthy induction signals by generating familiar questions with similar underlying reasoning paths and asking models to perform self-refinement. Experiments show that our proposed techniques improve models' conceptual reasoning performance by 8% to 11%, achieving a more robust reasoning system that relies less on inductive biases.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated outstanding performance across various tasks, yet they still exhibit limitations such as hallucination, unfaithful reasoning, and toxic content. One potential approach to mitigate these issues is learning from human or external feedback (e.g. tools). In this paper, we introduce an intrinsic self-correct reasoning framework for LLMs that eliminates the need for human feedback, external tools, and handcraft prompts. The proposed framework, based on a multi-step reasoning paradigm \textbf{Le}arning from \textbf{Co}rrectness (\textsc{LeCo}), improves reasoning performance without needing to learn from errors. This paradigm prioritizes learning from correct reasoning steps, and a unique method to measure confidence for each reasoning step based on generation logits. Experimental results across various multi-step reasoning tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of the framework in improving reasoning performance with reduced token consumption.

Autonomous systems are soon to be ubiquitous, from manufacturing autonomy to agricultural field robots, and from health care assistants to the entertainment industry. The majority of these systems are developed with modular sub-components for decision-making, planning, and control that may be hand-engineered or learning-based. While these existing approaches have been shown to perform well under the situations they were specifically designed for, they can perform especially poorly in rare, out-of-distribution scenarios that will undoubtedly arise at test-time. The rise of foundation models trained on multiple tasks with impressively large datasets from a variety of fields has led researchers to believe that these models may provide common sense reasoning that existing planners are missing. Researchers posit that this common sense reasoning will bridge the gap between algorithm development and deployment to out-of-distribution tasks, like how humans adapt to unexpected scenarios. Large language models have already penetrated the robotics and autonomous systems domains as researchers are scrambling to showcase their potential use cases in deployment. While this application direction is very promising empirically, foundation models are known to hallucinate and generate decisions that may sound reasonable, but are in fact poor. We argue there is a need to step back and simultaneously design systems that can quantify the certainty of a model's decision, and detect when it may be hallucinating. In this work, we discuss the current use cases of foundation models for decision-making tasks, provide a general definition for hallucinations with examples, discuss existing approaches to hallucination detection and mitigation with a focus on decision problems, and explore areas for further research in this exciting field.

Recently, a simple but powerful language for expressing and learning general policies and problem decompositions (sketches) has been introduced in terms of rules defined over a set of Boolean and numerical features. In this work, we consider three extensions of this language aimed at making policies and sketches more flexible and reusable: internal memory states, as in finite state controllers; indexical features, whose values are a function of the state and a number of internal registers that can be loaded with objects; and modules that wrap up policies and sketches and allow them to call each other by passing parameters. In addition, unlike general policies that select state transitions rather than ground actions, the new language allows for the selection of such actions. The expressive power of the resulting language for policies and sketches is illustrated through a number of examples.

We consider the question of what properties a Machine Ethics system should have. This question is complicated by the existence of ethical dilemmas with no agreed upon solution. We provide an example to motivate why we do not believe falling back on the elicitation of values from stakeholders is sufficient to guarantee correctness of such systems. We go on to define two broad categories of ethical property that have arisen in our own work and present a challenge to the community to approach this question in a more systematic way.

The focus of recent research has shifted from merely improving the metrics based performance of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) to DNNs which are more interpretable to humans. The field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has observed various techniques, including saliency-based and concept-based approaches. These approaches explain the model's decisions in simple human understandable terms called Concepts. Concepts are known to be the thinking ground of humans}. Explanations in terms of concepts enable detecting spurious correlations, inherent biases, or clever-hans. With the advent of concept-based explanations, a range of concept representation methods and automatic concept discovery algorithms have been introduced. Some recent works also use concepts for model improvement in terms of interpretability and generalization. We provide a systematic review and taxonomy of various concept representations and their discovery algorithms in DNNs, specifically in vision. We also provide details on concept-based model improvement literature marking the first comprehensive survey of these methods.

This thesis investigates how natural language understanding and generation with transformer models can benefit from grounding the models with knowledge representations. Currently, the most prevailing paradigm for training language models is through pre-training on abundant raw text data and fine-tuning on downstream tasks. Although language models continue to advance, especially the recent trend of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, there seem to be limits to what can be achieved with text data alone and it is desirable to study the impact of applying and integrating rich forms of knowledge representation to improve model performance. The most widely used form of knowledge for language modelling is structured knowledge in the form of triples consisting of entities and their relationships, often in English. This thesis explores beyond this conventional approach and aims to address several key questions: Can knowledge of entities extend its benefits beyond entity-centric tasks such as entity linking? How can we faithfully and effectively extract such structured knowledge from raw text, especially noisy web text? How do other types of knowledge, beyond structured knowledge, contribute to improving NLP tasks?

Social media platforms are rich sources of opinionated content. Stance detection allows the automatic extraction of users' opinions on various topics from such content. We focus on zero-shot stance detection, where the model's success relies on (a) having knowledge about the target topic; and (b) learning general reasoning strategies that can be employed for new topics. We present Stance Reasoner, an approach to zero-shot stance detection on social media that leverages explicit reasoning over background knowledge to guide the model's inference about the document's stance on a target. Specifically, our method uses a pre-trained language model as a source of world knowledge, with the chain-of-thought in-context learning approach to generate intermediate reasoning steps. Stance Reasoner outperforms the current state-of-the-art models on 3 Twitter datasets, including fully supervised models. It can better generalize across targets, while at the same time providing explicit and interpretable explanations for its predictions.