Humans make numerous inferences in text comprehension to understand discourse. This paper aims to understand the commonalities and disparities in the inference judgments between humans and state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs). Leveraging a comprehensively curated entailment verification benchmark, we evaluate both human and LLM performance across various reasoning categories. Our benchmark includes datasets from three categories (NLI, contextual QA, and rationales) that include multi-sentence premises and different knowledge types, thereby evaluating the inference capabilities in complex reasoning instances. Notably, our findings reveal LLMs' superiority in multi-hop reasoning across extended contexts, while humans excel in tasks necessitating simple deductive reasoning. Leveraging these insights, we introduce a fine-tuned Flan-T5 model that outperforms GPT-3.5 and rivals with GPT-4, offering a robust open-source solution for entailment verification. As a practical application, we showcase the efficacy of our finetuned model in enhancing self-consistency in model-generated explanations, resulting in a 6% performance boost on average across three multiple-choice question-answering datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning ability in various language-based tasks. Despite many proposed reasoning methods aimed at enhancing performance in downstream tasks, two fundamental questions persist: Does reasoning genuinely support predictions, and how reliable is the quality of reasoning? In this paper, we propose a framework \textsc{SCORE} to analyze how well LLMs can reason. Specifically, we focus on self-contradictory reasoning, where reasoning does not support the prediction. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves when performing reasoning tasks that involve contextual information and commonsense. The model may miss evidence or use shortcuts, thereby exhibiting self-contradictory behaviors. We also employ the Point-of-View (POV) method, which probes models to generate reasoning from multiple perspectives, as a diagnostic tool for further analysis. We find that though LLMs may appear to perform well in one-perspective settings, they fail to stabilize such behavior in multi-perspectives settings. Even for correct predictions, the reasoning may be messy and incomplete, and LLMs can easily be led astray from good reasoning. \textsc{SCORE}'s results underscore the lack of robustness required for trustworthy reasoning and the urgency for further research to establish best practices for a comprehensive evaluation of reasoning beyond accuracy-based metrics.

Transformer large language models (LLMs) have sparked admiration for their exceptional performance on tasks that demand intricate multi-step reasoning. Yet, these models simultaneously show failures on surprisingly trivial problems. This begs the question: Are these errors incidental, or do they signal more substantial limitations? In an attempt to demystify transformer LLMs, we investigate the limits of these models across three representative compositional tasks -- multi-digit multiplication, logic grid puzzles, and a classic dynamic programming problem. These tasks require breaking problems down into sub-steps and synthesizing these steps into a precise answer. We formulate compositional tasks as computation graphs to systematically quantify the level of complexity, and break down reasoning steps into intermediate sub-procedures. Our empirical findings suggest that transformer LLMs solve compositional tasks by reducing multi-step compositional reasoning into linearized subgraph matching, without necessarily developing systematic problem-solving skills. To round off our empirical study, we provide theoretical arguments on abstract multi-step reasoning problems that highlight how autoregressive generations' performance can rapidly decay with\,increased\,task\,complexity.

Procedural planning, which entails decomposing a high-level goal into a sequence of temporally ordered steps, is an important yet intricate task for machines. It involves integrating common-sense knowledge to reason about complex contextualized situations that are often counterfactual, e.g. "scheduling a doctor's appointment without a phone". While current approaches show encouraging results using large language models (LLMs), they are hindered by drawbacks such as costly API calls and reproducibility issues. In this paper, we advocate planning using smaller language models. We present PlaSma, a novel two-pronged approach to endow small language models with procedural knowledge and (counterfactual) planning capabilities. More concretely, we develop symbolic procedural knowledge distillation to enhance the implicit knowledge in small language models and an inference-time algorithm to facilitate more structured and accurate reasoning. In addition, we introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Planning, that requires a revision of a plan to cope with a counterfactual situation. In both the original and counterfactual setting, we show that orders-of-magnitude smaller models (770M-11B parameters) can compete and often surpass their larger teacher models' capabilities.

Logical reasoning of text is an important ability that requires understanding the information present in the text, their interconnections, and then reasoning through them to infer new conclusions. Prior works on improving the logical reasoning ability of language models require complex processing of training data (e.g., aligning symbolic knowledge to text), yielding task-specific data augmentation solutions that restrict the learning of general logical reasoning skills. In this work, we propose APOLLO, an adaptively pretrained language model that has improved logical reasoning abilities. We select a subset of Wikipedia, based on a set of logical inference keywords, for continued pretraining of a language model. We use two self-supervised loss functions: a modified masked language modeling loss where only specific parts-of-speech words, that would likely require more reasoning than basic language understanding, are masked, and a sentence-level classification loss that teaches the model to distinguish between entailment and contradiction types of sentences. The proposed training paradigm is both simple and independent of task formats. We demonstrate the effectiveness of APOLLO by comparing it with prior baselines on two logical reasoning datasets. APOLLO performs comparably on ReClor and outperforms baselines on LogiQA. The code base has been made publicly available.

Knowledge-intensive tasks, such as open-domain question answering (QA), require access to a large amount of world or domain knowledge. A common approach for knowledge-intensive tasks is to employ a retrieve-then-read pipeline that first retrieves a handful of relevant contextual documents from an external corpus such as Wikipedia and then predicts an answer conditioned on the retrieved documents. In this paper, we present a novel perspective for solving knowledge-intensive tasks by replacing document retrievers with large language model generators. We call our method generate-then-read (GenRead), which first prompts a large language model to generate contextutal documents based on a given question, and then reads the generated documents to produce the final answer. Furthermore, we propose a novel clustering-based prompting method that selects distinct prompts, resulting in the generated documents that cover different perspectives, leading to better recall over acceptable answers. We conduct extensive experiments on three different knowledge-intensive tasks, including open-domain QA, fact checking, and dialogue system. Notably, GenRead achieves 71.6 and 54.4 exact match scores on TriviaQA and WebQ, significantly outperforming the state-of-the-art retrieve-then-read pipeline DPR-FiD by +4.0 and +3.9, without retrieving any documents from any external knowledge source. Lastly, we demonstrate the model performance can be further improved by combining retrieval and generation. Our code and generated documents can be found at https://github.com/wyu97/GenRead.

Augmenting pre-trained language models with knowledge graphs (KGs) has achieved success on various commonsense reasoning tasks. However, for a given task instance, the KG, or certain parts of the KG, may not be useful. Although KG-augmented models often use attention to focus on specific KG components, the KG is still always used, and the attention mechanism is never explicitly taught which KG components should be used. Meanwhile, saliency methods can measure how much a KG feature (e.g., graph, node, path) influences the model to make the correct prediction, thus explaining which KG features are useful. This paper explores how saliency explanations can be used to improve KG-augmented models' performance. First, we propose to create coarse (Is the KG useful?) and fine (Which nodes/paths in the KG are useful?) saliency explanations. Second, to motivate saliency-based supervision, we analyze oracle KG-augmented models which directly use saliency explanations as extra inputs for guiding their attention. Third, we propose SalKG, a framework for KG-augmented models to learn from coarse and/or fine saliency explanations. Given saliency explanations created from a task's training set, SalKG jointly trains the model to predict the explanations, then solve the task by attending to KG features highlighted by the predicted explanations. On three commonsense QA benchmarks (CSQA, OBQA, CODAH) and a range of KG-augmented models, we show that SalKG can yield considerable performance gains -- up to 2.76% absolute improvement on CSQA.

Developing accurate, transferable and computationally inexpensive machine learning models can rapidly accelerate the discovery and development of new materials. Some of the major challenges involved in developing such models are, (i) limited availability of materials data as compared to other fields, (ii) lack of universal descriptor of materials to predict its various properties. The limited availability of materials data can be addressed through transfer learning, while the generic representation was recently addressed by Xie and Grossman [1], where they developed a crystal graph convolutional neural network (CGCNN) that provides a unified representation of crystals. In this work, we develop a new model (MT-CGCNN) by integrating CGCNN with transfer learning based on multi-task (MT) learning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of MT-CGCNN by simultaneous prediction of various material properties such as Formation Energy, Band Gap and Fermi Energy for a wide range of inorganic crystals (46774 materials). MT-CGCNN is able to reduce the test error when employed on correlated properties by upto 8%. The model prediction has lower test error compared to CGCNN, even when the training data is reduced by 10%. We also demonstrate our model's better performance through prediction of end user scenario related to metal/non-metal classification. These results encourage further development of machine learning approaches which leverage multi-task learning to address the aforementioned challenges in the discovery of new materials. We make MT-CGCNN's source code available to encourage reproducible research.