With the accumulation of data at an unprecedented rate, its potential to fuel scientific discovery is growing exponentially. This position paper urges the Machine Learning (ML) community to exploit the capabilities of large generative models (LGMs) to develop automated systems for end-to-end data-driven discovery -- a paradigm encompassing the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets, without the need for additional data collection or physical experiments. We first outline several desiderata for an ideal data-driven discovery system. Then, through DATAVOYAGER, a proof-of-concept utilizing GPT-4, we demonstrate how LGMs fulfill several of these desiderata -- a feat previously unattainable -- while also highlighting important limitations in the current system that open up opportunities for novel ML research. We contend that achieving accurate, reliable, and robust end-to-end discovery systems solely through the current capabilities of LGMs is challenging. We instead advocate for fail-proof tool integration, along with active user moderation through feedback mechanisms, to foster data-driven scientific discoveries with efficiency and reproducibility.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been used for sequential decision making in interactive environments. However, leveraging environment reward signals for continual LLM actor improvement is not straightforward. We propose Skill Set Optimization (SSO) for improving LLM actor performance through constructing and refining sets of transferable skills. SSO constructs skills by extracting common subtrajectories with high rewards and generating subgoals and instructions to represent each skill. These skills are provided to the LLM actor in-context to reinforce behaviors with high rewards. Then, SSO further refines the skill set by pruning skills that do not continue to result in high rewards. We evaluate our method in the classic videogame NetHack and the text environment ScienceWorld to demonstrate SSO's ability to optimize a set of skills and perform in-context policy improvement. SSO outperforms baselines by 40% in our custom NetHack task and outperforms the previous state-of-the-art in ScienceWorld by 35%.

Recent works have showcased the ability of LLMs to embody diverse personas in their responses, exemplified by prompts like 'You are Yoda. Explain the Theory of Relativity.' While this ability allows personalization of LLMs and enables human behavior simulation, its effect on LLMs' capabilities remains unclear. To fill this gap, we present the first extensive study of the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks. Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups. Our experiments unveil that LLMs harbor deep rooted bias against various socio-demographics underneath a veneer of fairness. While they overtly reject stereotypes when explicitly asked ('Are Black people less skilled at mathematics?'), they manifest stereotypical and erroneous presumptions when asked to answer questions while adopting a persona. These can be observed as abstentions in responses, e.g., 'As a Black person, I can't answer this question as it requires math knowledge', and generally result in a substantial performance drop. Our experiments with ChatGPT-3.5 show that this bias is ubiquitous - 80% of our personas demonstrate bias; it is significant - some datasets show performance drops of 70%+; and can be especially harmful for certain groups - some personas suffer statistically significant drops on 80%+ of the datasets. Overall, all 4 LLMs exhibit this bias to varying extents, with GPT-4-Turbo showing the least but still a problematic amount of bias (evident in 42% of the personas). Further analysis shows that these persona-induced errors can be hard-to-discern and hard-to-avoid. Our findings serve as a cautionary tale that the practice of assigning personas to LLMs - a trend on the rise - can surface their deep-rooted biases and have unforeseeable and detrimental side-effects.

How can we train models to perform well on hard test data when hard training data is by definition difficult to label correctly? This question has been termed the scalable oversight problem and has drawn increasing attention as language models have continually improved. In this paper, we present the surprising conclusion that current language models often generalize relatively well from easy to hard data, even performing as well as "oracle" models trained on hard data. We demonstrate this kind of easy-to-hard generalization using simple training methods like in-context learning, linear classifier heads, and QLoRA for seven different measures of datapoint hardness, including six empirically diverse human hardness measures (like grade level) and one model-based measure (loss-based). Furthermore, we show that even if one cares most about model performance on hard data, it can be better to collect and train on easy data rather than hard data, since hard data is generally noisier and costlier to collect. Our experiments use open models up to 70b in size and four publicly available question-answering datasets with questions ranging in difficulty from 3rd grade science questions to college level STEM questions and general-knowledge trivia. We conclude that easy-to-hard generalization in LMs is surprisingly strong for the tasks studied, suggesting the scalable oversight problem may be easier than previously thought. Our code is available at https://github.com/allenai/easy-to-hard-generalization

Our goal is a modern approach to answering questions via systematic reasoning where answers are supported by human interpretable proof trees grounded in an NL corpus of authoritative facts. Such a system would help alleviate the challenges of interpretability and hallucination with modern LMs, and the lack of grounding of current explanation methods (e.g., Chain-of-Thought). This paper proposes a new take on Prolog-based inference engines, where we replace handcrafted rules with a combination of neural language modeling, guided generation, and semiparametric dense retrieval. Our implementation, NELLIE, is the first system to demonstrate fully interpretable, end-to-end grounded QA as entailment tree proof search, going beyond earlier work explaining known-to-be-true facts from text. In experiments, NELLIE outperforms a similar-sized state-of-the-art reasoner [Tafjord et al., 2022] while producing knowledge-grounded explanations. We also find NELLIE can exploit both semi-structured and NL text corpora to guide reasoning. Together these suggest a new way to jointly reap the benefits of both modern neural methods and traditional symbolic reasoning.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

While LLMs can provide reasoned explanations along with their answers, the nature and quality of those explanations are still poorly understood. In response, our goal is to define a detailed way of characterizing the explanation capabilities of modern models and to create a nuanced, interpretable explanation evaluation tool that can generate such characterizations automatically, without relying on expensive API calls or human annotations. Our approach is to (a) define the new task of explanation critiquing - identifying and categorizing any main flaw in an explanation and providing suggestions to address the flaw, (b) create a sizeable, human-verified dataset for this task, and (c) train an open-source, automatic critiquing model (called Digital Socrates) using this data. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, we demonstrate how Digital Socrates is useful for revealing insights about student models by examining their reasoning chains, and how it can provide high-quality, nuanced, automatic evaluation of those model explanations for the first time. Digital Socrates thus fills an important gap in evaluation tools for understanding and improving the explanation behavior of models.

In-context learning (ICL) is an appealing approach for semantic parsing due to its few-shot nature and improved generalization. However, learning to parse to rare domain-specific languages (DSLs) from just a few demonstrations is challenging, limiting the performance of even the most capable LLMs. In this work, we improve the effectiveness of ICL for semantic parsing by (1) using general-purpose programming languages such as Python instead of DSLs, and (2) augmenting prompts with a structured domain description that includes, e.g., the available classes and functions. We show that both these changes significantly improve accuracy across three popular datasets. Combined, they lead to dramatic improvements (e.g. 7.9% to 66.5% on SMCalFlow compositional split), nearly closing the performance gap between easier i.i.d.\ and harder compositional splits when used with a strong model, and reducing the need for a large number of demonstrations. We find that the resemblance of the target parse language to general-purpose code is a more important factor than the language's popularity in pre-training corpora. Our findings provide an improved methodology for building semantic parsers in the modern context of ICL with LLMs.

How-to procedures, such as how to plant a garden, are ubiquitous. But one size does not fit all - humans often need to customize these procedural plans according to their specific needs, e.g., planting a garden without pesticides. While LLMs can fluently generate generic procedures, we present the first study on how well LLMs can customize open-domain procedures. We introduce CustomPlans, a probe dataset of customization hints that encodes diverse user needs for open-domain How-to procedures. Using LLMs as CustomizationAgent and ExecutionAgent in different settings, we establish their abilities to perform open-domain procedure customization. Human evaluation shows that using these agents in a Sequential setting is the best, but they are good enough only ~51% of the time. Error analysis shows that LLMs do not sufficiently address user customization needs in their generated procedures.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for interactive decision-making tasks requiring planning and adapting to the environment. Recent works employ LLMs-as-agents in broadly two ways: iteratively determining the next action (iterative executors) or generating plans and executing sub-tasks using LLMs (plan-and-execute). However, these methods struggle with task complexity, as the inability to execute any sub-task may lead to task failure. To address these shortcomings, we introduce As-Needed Decomposition and Planning for complex Tasks (ADaPT), an approach that explicitly plans and decomposes complex sub-tasks as-needed, i.e., when the LLM is unable to execute them. ADaPT recursively decomposes sub-tasks to adapt to both task complexity and LLM capability. Our results demonstrate that ADaPT substantially outperforms established strong baselines, achieving success rates up to 28.3% higher in ALFWorld, 27% in WebShop, and 33% in TextCraft -- a novel compositional dataset that we introduce. Through extensive analysis, we illustrate the importance of multilevel decomposition and establish that ADaPT dynamically adjusts to the capabilities of the executor LLM as well as to task complexity.