Although pretrained language models (PTLMs) have been shown to contain significant amounts of world knowledge, they can still produce inconsistent answers to questions when probed, even after using specialized training techniques to reduce inconsistency. As a result, it can be hard to identify what the model actually "believes" about the world. Our goal is to reduce this problem, so systems are more globally consistent and accurate in their answers. Our approach is to add a memory component - a BeliefBank - that records a model's answers, and two mechanisms that use it to improve consistency among beliefs. First, a reasoning component - a weighted SAT solver - improves consistency by flipping answers that significantly clash with others. Second, a feedback component re-queries the model but using known beliefs as context. We show that, in a controlled experimental setting, these two mechanisms improve both accuracy and consistency. This is significant as it is a first step towards endowing models with an evolving memory, allowing them to construct a more coherent picture of the world.

We present the ARC-DA dataset, a direct-answer ("open response", "freeform") version of the ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) multiple-choice dataset. While ARC has been influential in the community, its multiple-choice format is unrepresentative of real-world questions, and multiple choice formats can be particularly susceptible to artifacts. The ARC-DA dataset addresses these concerns by converting questions to direct-answer format using a combination of crowdsourcing and expert review. The resulting dataset contains 2985 questions with a total of 8436 valid answers (questions typically have more than one valid answer). ARC-DA is one of the first DA datasets of natural questions that often require reasoning, and where appropriate question decompositions are not evident from the questions themselves. We describe the conversion approach taken, appropriate evaluation metrics, and several strong models. Although high, the best scores (81% GENIE, 61.4% F1, 63.2% ROUGE-L) still leave considerable room for improvement. In addition, the dataset provides a natural setting for new research on explanation, as many questions require reasoning to construct answers. We hope the dataset spurs further advances in complex question-answering by the community. ARC-DA is available at https://allenai.org/data/arc-da

Transformers have been shown to emulate logical deduction over natural language theories (logical rules expressed in natural language), reliably assigning true/false labels to candidate implications. However, their ability to generate implications of a theory has not yet been demonstrated, and methods for reconstructing proofs of answers are imperfect. In this work we show that a generative model, called ProofWriter, can reliably generate both implications of a theory and the natural language proof(s) that support them. In particular, iterating a 1-step implication generator results in proofs that are highly reliable, and represent actual model decisions (rather than post-hoc rationalizations). On the RuleTaker dataset, the accuracy of ProofWriter's proofs exceed previous methods by 9% absolute, and in a way that generalizes to proof depths unseen in training and on out-of-domain problems. We also show that generative techniques can perform a type of abduction with high precision: Given a theory and an unprovable conclusion, identify a missing fact that allows the conclusion to be proved, along with a proof. These results Figure 1: Given facts, rules, and a question all expressed significantly improve the viability of neural in natural language, ProofWriter answers the methods for systematically reasoning over question and generates a proof of the answer.

Despite the rapid progress in multihop question-answering (QA), models still have trouble explaining why an answer is correct, with limited explanation training data available to learn from. To address this, we introduce three explanation datasets in which explanations formed from corpus facts are annotated. Our first dataset, eQASC, contains over 98K explanation annotations for the multihop question answering dataset QASC, and is the first that annotates multiple candidate explanations for each answer. The second dataset eQASC-perturbed is constructed by crowd-sourcing perturbations (while preserving their validity) of a subset of explanations in QASC, to test consistency and generalization of explanation prediction models. The third dataset eOBQA is constructed by adding explanation annotations to the OBQA dataset to test generalization of models trained on eQASC. We show that this data can be used to significantly improve explanation quality (+14% absolute F1 over a strong retrieval baseline) using a BERT-based classifier, but still behind the upper bound, offering a new challenge for future research. We also explore a delexicalized chain representation in which repeated noun phrases are replaced by variables, thus turning them into generalized reasoning chains (for example: "X is a Y" AND "Y has Z" IMPLIES "X has Z"). We find that generalized chains maintain performance while also being more robust to certain perturbations.

A common approach to solve complex tasks is by breaking them down into simple sub-problems that can then be solved by simpler modules. However, these approaches often need to be designed and trained specifically for each complex task. We propose a general approach, Text Modular Networks(TMNs), where the system learns to decompose any complex task into the language of existing models. Specifically, we focus on Question Answering (QA) and learn to decompose complex questions into sub-questions answerable by existing QA models. TMNs treat these models as blackboxes and learn their textual input-output behavior (i.e., their language) through their task datasets. Our next-question generator then learns to sequentially produce sub-questions that help answer a given complex question. These sub-questions are posed to different existing QA models and, together with their answers, provide a natural language explanation of the exact reasoning used by the model. We present the first system, incorporating a neural factoid QA model and a symbolic calculator, that uses decomposition for the DROP dataset, while also generalizing to the multi-hop HotpotQA dataset. Our system, ModularQA, outperforms a cross-task baseline by 10-60 F1 points and performs comparable to task-specific systems, while also providing an easy-to-read explanation of its reasoning.

Evidence suggests that large pre-trained language models (LMs) acquire some reasoning capacity, but this ability is difficult to control. Recently, it has been shown that Transformer-based models succeed in consistent reasoning over explicit symbolic facts, under a "closed-world" assumption. However, in an open-domain setup, it is desirable to tap into the vast reservoir of implicit knowledge already encoded in the parameters of pre-trained LMs. In this work, we provide a first demonstration that LMs can be trained to reliably perform systematic reasoning combining both implicit, pre-trained knowledge and explicit natural language statements. To do this, we describe a procedure for automatically generating datasets that teach a model new reasoning skills, and demonstrate that models learn to effectively perform inference which involves implicit taxonomic and world knowledge, chaining and counting. Finally, we show that "teaching" the models to reason generalizes beyond the training distribution: they successfully compose the usage of multiple reasoning skills in single examples. Our work paves a path towards open-domain systems that constantly improve by interacting with users who can instantly correct a model by adding simple natural language statements.

We present a new knowledge-base of hasPart relationships, extracted from a large corpus of generic statements. Complementary to other resources available, it is the first which is all three of: accurate (90% precision), salient (covers relationships a person may mention), and has high coverage of common terms (approximated as within a 10 year old's vocabulary), as well as having several times more hasPart entries than in the popular ontologies ConceptNet and WordNet. In addition, it contains information about quantifiers, argument modifiers, and links the entities to appropriate concepts in Wikipedia and WordNet. The knowledge base is available at https://allenai.org/data/haspartkb

This Chapter describes a new technique, called "knowledge patterns", for helping construct axiom-rich, formal ontologies, based on identifying and explicitly representing recurring patterns of knowledge (theory schemata) in the ontology, and then stating how those patterns map onto domain-specific concepts in the ontology. From a modeling perspective, knowledge patterns provide an important insight into the structure of a formal ontology: rather than viewing a formal ontology simply as a list of terms and axioms, knowledge patterns views it as a collection of abstract, modular theories (the "knowledge patterns") plus a collection of modeling decisions stating how different aspects of the world can be modeled using those theories. Knowledge patterns make both those abstract theories and their mappings to the domain of interest explicit, thus making modeling decisions clear, and avoiding some of the ontological confusion that can otherwise arise. In addition, from a computational perspective, knowledge patterns provide a simple and computationally efficient mechanism for facilitating knowledge reuse. We describe the technique and an application built using them, and then critique its strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that this technique enables us to better explicate both the structure and modeling decisions made when constructing a formal axiom-rich ontology.

Question answering (QA) tasks have been posed using a variety of formats, such as extractive span selection, multiple choice, etc. This has led to format-specialized models, and even to an implicit division in the QA community. We argue that such boundaries are artificial and perhaps unnecessary, given the reasoning abilities we seek to teach are not governed by the format. As evidence, we use the latest advances in language modeling to build a single pre-trained QA model, UnifiedQA, that performs surprisingly well across 17 QA datasets spanning 4 diverse formats. UnifiedQA performs on par with 9 different models that were trained on individual datasets themselves. Even when faced with 12 unseen datasets of observed formats, UnifiedQA performs surprisingly well, showing strong generalization from its out-of-format training data. Finally, simply fine-tuning this pre-trained QA model into specialized models results in a new state of the art on 6 datasets, establishing UnifiedQA as a strong starting point for building QA systems.

Our goal is to better comprehend procedural text, e.g., a paragraph about photosynthesis, by not only predicting what happens, but why some actions need to happen before others. Our approach builds on a prior process comprehension framework for predicting actions' effects, to also identify subsequent steps that those effects enable. We present our new model (XPAD) that biases effect predictions towards those that (1) explain more of the actions in the paragraph and (2) are more plausible with respect to background knowledge. We also extend an existing benchmark dataset for procedural text comprehension, ProPara, by adding the new task of explaining actions by predicting their dependencies. We find that XPAD significantly outperforms prior systems on this task, while maintaining the performance on the original task in ProPara. The dataset is available at http://data.allenai.org/propara