Entity tracking is a fundamental challenge in natural language understanding, requiring models to maintain coherent representations of entities. Previous work has benchmarked entity tracking performance in purely text-based tasks. We introduce MET-Bench, a multimodal entity tracking benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of vision-language models to track entity states across modalities. Using two structured domains, Chess and the Shell Game, we assess how effectively current models integrate textual and image-based state updates. Our findings reveal a significant performance gap between text-based and image-based tracking and that this performance gap stems from deficits in visual reasoning rather than perception. We further show that explicit text-based reasoning strategies improve performance, yet substantial limitations remain, especially in long-horizon multimodal scenarios. Our results highlight the need for improved multimodal representations and reasoning techniques to bridge the gap between textual and visual entity tracking.

With large language models, robots can understand language more flexibly and more capable than ever before. This survey reviews and situates recent literature into a spectrum with two poles: 1) mapping between language and some manually defined formal representation of meaning, and 2) mapping between language and high-dimensional vector spaces that translate directly to low-level robot policy. Using a formal representation allows the meaning of the language to be precisely represented, limits the size of the learning problem, and leads to a framework for interpretability and formal safety guarantees. Methods that embed language and perceptual data into high-dimensional spaces avoid this manually specified symbolic structure and thus have the potential to be more general when fed enough data but require more data and computing to train. We discuss the benefits and tradeoffs of each approach and finish by providing directions for future work that achieves the best of both worlds.

Understanding the abilities of LLMs to reason about natural language plans, such as instructional text and recipes, is critical to reliably using them in decision-making systems. A fundamental aspect of plans is the temporal order in which their steps needs to be executed, which reflects the underlying causal dependencies between them. We introduce CaT-Bench, a benchmark of Step Order Prediction questions, which test whether a step must necessarily occur before or after another in cooking recipe plans. We use this to evaluate how well frontier LLMs understand causal and temporal dependencies. We find that SOTA LLMs are underwhelming (best zero-shot is only 0.59 in F1), and are biased towards predicting dependence more often, perhaps relying on temporal order of steps as a heuristic. While prompting for explanations and using few-shot examples improve performance, the best F1 result is only 0.73. Further, human evaluation of explanations along with answer correctness show that, on average, humans do not agree with model reasoning. Surprisingly, we also find that explaining after answering leads to better performance than normal chain-of-thought prompting, and LLM answers are not consistent across questions about the same step pairs. Overall, results show that LLMs' ability to detect dependence between steps has significant room for improvement.

We introduce Semantic Parsing in Contextual Environments (SPICE), a task designed to enhance artificial agents' contextual awareness by integrating multimodal inputs with prior contexts. SPICE goes beyond traditional semantic parsing by offering a structured, interpretable framework for dynamically updating an agent's knowledge with new information, mirroring the complexity of human communication. We develop the VG-SPICE dataset, crafted to challenge agents with visual scene graph construction from spoken conversational exchanges, highlighting speech and visual data integration. We also present the Audio-Vision Dialogue Scene Parser (AViD-SP) developed for use on VG-SPICE. These innovations aim to improve multimodal information processing and integration. Both the VG-SPICE dataset and the AViD-SP model are publicly available.

In this paper, we examine how large language models (LLMs) solve multi-step problems under a language agent framework with three components: a generator, a discriminator, and a planning method. We investigate the practical utility of two advanced planning methods, iterative correction and tree search. We present a comprehensive analysis of how discrimination accuracy affects the overall performance of agents when using these two methods or a simpler method, re-ranking. Experiments on two tasks, text-to-SQL parsing and mathematical reasoning, show that: (1) advanced planning methods demand discriminators with at least 90% accuracy to achieve significant improvements over re-ranking; (2) current LLMs' discrimination abilities have not met the needs of advanced planning methods to achieve such improvements; (3) with LLM-based discriminators, advanced planning methods may not adequately balance accuracy and efficiency. For example, compared to the other two methods, tree search is at least 10--20 times slower but leads to negligible performance gains, which hinders its real-world applications. Code and data are available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/llm-planning-eval.

Distilling explicit chain-of-thought reasoning paths has emerged as an effective method for improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) across various tasks. However, when tackling complex tasks that pose significant challenges for state-of-the-art models, this technique often struggles to produce effective chains of thought that lead to correct answers. In this work, we propose a novel approach to distill reasoning abilities from LLMs by leveraging their capacity to explain solutions. We apply our method to solving competitive-level programming challenges. More specifically, we employ an LLM to generate explanations for a set of pairs, then use pairs to fine-tune a smaller language model, which we refer to as the Reasoner, to learn algorithmic reasoning that can generate "how-to-solve" hints for unseen problems. Our experiments demonstrate that learning from explanations enables the Reasoner to more effectively guide program implementation by a Coder, resulting in higher solve rates than strong chain-of-thought baselines on competitive-level programming problems. It also outperforms models that learn directly from pairs. We curated an additional test set in the CodeContests format, which includes 246 more recent problems posted after the models' knowledge cutoff.

The ability to interact with machines using natural human language is becoming not just commonplace, but expected. The next step is not just text interfaces, but speech interfaces and not just with computers, but with all machines including robots. In this paper, we chronicle the recent history of this growing field of spoken dialogue with robots and offer the community three proposals, the first focused on education, the second on benchmarks, and the third on the modeling of language when it comes to spoken interaction with robots. The three proposals should act as white papers for any researcher to take and build upon.

There is growing interest in generating skeleton-based human motions from natural language descriptions. While most efforts have focused on developing better neural architectures for this task, there has been no significant work on determining the proper evaluation metric. Human evaluation is the ultimate accuracy measure for this task, and automated metrics should correlate well with human quality judgments. Since descriptions are compatible with many motions, determining the right metric is critical for evaluating and designing effective generative models. This paper systematically studies which metrics best align with human evaluations and proposes new metrics that align even better. Our findings indicate that none of the metrics currently used for this task show even a moderate correlation with human judgments on a sample level. However, for assessing average model performance, commonly used metrics such as R-Precision and less-used coordinate errors show strong correlations. Additionally, several recently developed metrics are not recommended due to their low correlation compared to alternatives. We also introduce a novel metric based on a multimodal BERT-like model, MoBERT, which offers strongly human-correlated sample-level evaluations while maintaining near-perfect model-level correlation. Our results demonstrate that this new metric exhibits extensive benefits over all current alternatives.

In this paper, we approach competitive-level programming problem-solving as a composite task of reasoning and code generation. We propose a novel method to automatically annotate natural language explanations to \textit{} pairs. We show that despite poor performance in solving competitive-level programming problems, state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit a strong capacity in describing and explaining solutions. Our explanation generation methodology can generate a structured solution explanation for the problem containing descriptions and analysis. To evaluate the quality of the annotated explanations, we examine their effectiveness in two aspects: 1) satisfying the human programming expert who authored the oracle solution, and 2) aiding LLMs in solving problems more effectively. The experimental results on the CodeContests dataset demonstrate that while LLM GPT3.5's and GPT-4's abilities in describing the solution are comparable, GPT-4 shows a better understanding of the key idea behind the solution.

Despite recent progress in text-to-SQL parsing, current semantic parsers are still not accurate enough for practical use. In this paper, we investigate how to build automatic text-to-SQL error correction models. Noticing that token-level edits are out of context and sometimes ambiguous, we propose building clause-level edit models instead. Besides, while most language models of code are not specifically pre-trained for SQL, they know common data structures and their operations in programming languages such as Python. Thus, we propose a novel representation for SQL queries and their edits that adheres more closely to the pre-training corpora of language models of code. Our error correction model improves the exact set match accuracy of different parsers by 2.4-6.5 and obtains up to 4.3 point absolute improvement over two strong baselines. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/Auto-SQL-Correction.