The reasoning steps generated by LLMs might be incomplete, as they mimic logical leaps common in everyday communication found in their pre-training data: underlying rationales are frequently left implicit (unstated). To address this challenge, we introduce RATIONALYST, a model for process-supervision of reasoning based on pre-training on a vast collection of rationale annotations extracted from unlabeled data. We extract 79k rationales from web-scale unlabelled dataset (the Pile) and a combination of reasoning datasets with minimal human intervention. This web-scale pre-training for reasoning allows RATIONALYST to consistently generalize across diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematical, commonsense, scientific, and logical reasoning. Fine-tuned from LLaMa-3-8B, RATIONALYST improves the accuracy of reasoning by an average of 3.9% on 7 representative reasoning benchmarks. It also demonstrates superior performance compared to significantly larger verifiers like GPT-4 and similarly sized models fine-tuned on matching training sets.

As LLMs become increasingly prevalent, it is interesting to consider how ``creative'' these models can be. From cognitive science, creativity consists of at least two key characteristics: \emph{convergent} thinking (purposefulness to achieve a given goal) and \emph{divergent} thinking (adaptability to new environments or constraints) \citep{runco2003critical}. In this work, we introduce a framework for quantifying LLM creativity that incorporates the two characteristics. This is achieved by (1) Denial Prompting pushes LLMs to come up with more creative solutions to a given problem by incrementally imposing new constraints on the previous solution, compelling LLMs to adopt new strategies, and (2) defining and computing the NeoGauge metric which examines both convergent and divergent thinking in the generated creative responses by LLMs. We apply the proposed framework on Codeforces problems, a natural data source for collecting human coding solutions. We quantify NeoGauge for various proprietary and open-source models and find that even the most creative model, GPT-4, still falls short of demonstrating human-like creativity. We also experiment with advanced reasoning strategies (MCTS, self-correction, etc.) and observe no significant improvement in creativity. As a by-product of our analysis, we release NeoCoder dataset for reproducing our results on future models.

Can LLMs continually improve their previous outputs for better results? An affirmative answer would require LLMs to be better at discriminating among previously-generated alternatives, than generating initial responses. We explore the validity of this hypothesis in practice. We first introduce a unified framework that allows us to compare the generative and discriminative capability of any model on any task. Then, in our resulting experimental analysis of several LLMs, we do not observe the performance of those models on discrimination to be reliably better than generation. We hope these findings inform the growing literature on self-improvement AI systems.

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with complex logical reasoning due to logical inconsistencies and the inherent difficulty of such reasoning. We use Lean, a theorem proving framework, to address these challenges. By formalizing logical reasoning problems into theorems within Lean, we can solve them by proving or disproving the corresponding theorems. This method reduces the risk of logical inconsistencies with the help of Lean's symbolic solver. It also enhances our ability to treat complex reasoning tasks by using Lean's extensive library of theorem proofs. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on the FOLIO dataset and achieves performance near this level on ProofWriter. Notably, these results were accomplished by fine-tuning on fewer than 100 in-domain samples for each dataset.

Contemporary language models enable new opportunities for structured reasoning with text, such as the construction and evaluation of intuitive, proof-like textual entailment trees without relying on brittle formal logic. However, progress in this direction has been hampered by a long-standing lack of a clear protocol for determining what valid compositional entailment is. This absence causes noisy datasets and limited performance gains by modern neuro-symbolic engines. To address these problems, we formulate a consistent and theoretically grounded approach to annotating decompositional entailment datasets, and evaluate its impact on LLM-based textual inference. We find that our resulting dataset, RDTE (Recognizing Decompositional Textual Entailment), has a substantially higher internal consistency (+9%) than prior decompositional entailment datasets, suggesting that RDTE is a significant step forward in the long-standing problem of forming a clear protocol for discerning entailment. We also find that training an RDTE-oriented entailment classifier via knowledge distillation and employing it in a modern neuro-symbolic reasoning engine significantly improves results (both accuracy and proof quality) over other entailment classifier baselines, illustrating the practical benefit of this advance for textual inference.