State-of-the-art natural language processing models have been shown to achieve remarkable performance in 'closed-world' settings where all the labels in the evaluation set are known at training time. However, in real-world settings, 'novel' instances that do not belong to any known class are often observed. This renders the ability to deal with novelties crucial. To initiate a systematic research in this important area of 'dealing with novelties', we introduce 'NoveltyTask', a multi-stage task to evaluate a system's performance on pipelined novelty 'detection' and 'accommodation' tasks. We provide mathematical formulation of NoveltyTask and instantiate it with the authorship attribution task that pertains to identifying the correct author of a given text. We use Amazon reviews corpus and compile a large dataset (consisting of 250k instances across 200 authors/labels) for NoveltyTask. We conduct comprehensive experiments and explore several baseline methods for the task. Our results show that the methods achieve considerably low performance making the task challenging and leaving sufficient room for improvement. Finally, we believe our work will encourage research in this underexplored area of dealing with novelties, an important step en route to developing robust systems.

Despite remarkable progress made in natural language processing, even the state-of-the-art models often make incorrect predictions. Such predictions hamper the reliability of systems and limit their widespread adoption in real-world applications. 'Selective prediction' partly addresses the above concern by enabling models to abstain from answering when their predictions are likely to be incorrect. While selective prediction is advantageous, it leaves us with a pertinent question 'what to do after abstention'. To this end, we present an explorative study on 'Post-Abstention', a task that allows re-attempting the abstained instances with the aim of increasing 'coverage' of the system without significantly sacrificing its 'accuracy'. We first provide mathematical formulation of this task and then explore several methods to solve it. Comprehensive experiments on 11 QA datasets show that these methods lead to considerable risk improvements -- performance metric of the Post-Abstention task -- both in the in-domain and the out-of-domain settings. We also conduct a thorough analysis of these results which further leads to several interesting findings. Finally, we believe that our work will encourage and facilitate further research in this important area of addressing the reliability of NLP systems.

Examples of such domains are "perfect information Learning to detect, characterize and accommodate novelties is a games" such as Chess, Go, or Ms.Pac-man, where the rules challenge that agents operating in open-world domains need to of the game, the goals of the players, and the entire state of the address to be able to guarantee satisfactory task performance. Certain game are always known by all agents [10, 24, 30]. This characteristic novelties (e.g., changes in environment dynamics) can interfere simplifies the game AI behavior by limiting the number of novelties with the performance or prevent agents from accomplishing task to instances of known types (e.g., a chess move with the bishop goals altogether. In this paper, we introduce general methods and a player has not seen before), thus allowing the development of architectural mechanisms for detecting and characterizing different the game AI without needing to anticipate any unknown scenarios types of novelties, and for building an appropriate adaptive within the bounds of the system (e.g., a novel piece with novel rules model to accommodate them utilizing logical representations and being introduced).

In current NLP research, large-scale language models and their abilities are widely being discussed. Some recent works have also found notable failures of these models. Often these failure examples involve complex reasoning abilities. This work focuses on a simple commonsense ability, reasoning about when an action (or its effect) is feasible. To this end, we introduce FeasibilityQA, a question-answering dataset involving binary classification (BCQ) and multi-choice multi-correct questions (MCQ) that test understanding of feasibility. We show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-3, GPT-2, and T5 struggle to answer the feasibility questions correctly. Specifically, on MCQ and BCQ questions, GPT-3 achieves an accuracy of just (19%, 62%) and (25%, 64%) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. We also evaluate models by providing relevant knowledge statements required to answer the question. We find that the additional knowledge leads to a 7% gain in performance, but the overall performance still remains low. These results make one wonder how much commonsense knowledge about action feasibility is encoded in state-of-the-art models and how well they can reason about it.

Recent state-of-the-art open-domain QA models are typically based on a two stage retriever-reader approach in which the retriever first finds the relevant knowledge/passages and the reader then leverages that to predict the answer. Prior work has shown that the performance of the reader usually tends to improve with the increase in the number of these passages. Thus, state-of-the-art models use a large number of passages (e.g. 100) for inference. While the reader in this approach achieves high prediction performance, its inference is computationally very expensive. We humans, on the other hand, use a more efficient strategy while answering: firstly, if we can confidently answer the question using our already acquired knowledge then we do not even use the external knowledge, and in the case when we do require external knowledge, we don't read the entire knowledge at once, instead, we only read that much knowledge that is sufficient to find the answer. Motivated by this procedure, we ask a research question "Can the open-domain QA reader utilize external knowledge efficiently like humans without sacrificing the prediction performance?" Driven by this question, we explore an approach that utilizes both 'closed-book' (leveraging knowledge already present in the model parameters) and 'open-book' inference (leveraging external knowledge). Furthermore, instead of using a large fixed number of passages for open-book inference, we dynamically read the external knowledge in multiple 'knowledge iterations'. Through comprehensive experiments on NQ and TriviaQA datasets, we demonstrate that this dynamic reading approach improves both the 'inference efficiency' and the 'prediction accuracy' of the reader. Comparing with the FiD reader, this approach matches its accuracy by utilizing just 18.32% of its reader inference cost and also outperforms it by achieving up to 55.10% accuracy on NQ Open.

Standard NLP tasks do not incorporate several common real-world scenarios such as seeking clarifications about the question, taking advantage of clues, abstaining in order to avoid incorrect answers, etc. This difference in task formulation hinders the adoption of NLP systems in real-world settings. In this work, we take a step towards bridging this gap and present a multi-stage task that simulates a typical human-human questioner-responder interaction such as an interview. Specifically, the system is provided with question simplifications, knowledge statements, examples, etc. at various stages to improve its prediction when it is not sufficiently confident. We instantiate the proposed task in Natural Language Inference setting where a system is evaluated on both in-domain and out-of-domain (OOD) inputs. We conduct comprehensive experiments and find that the multi-stage formulation of our task leads to OOD generalization performance improvement up to 2.29% in Stage 1, 1.91% in Stage 2, 54.88% in Stage 3, and 72.02% in Stage 4 over the standard unguided prediction. However, our task leaves a significant challenge for NLP researchers to further improve OOD performance at each stage.

A recent work has shown that transformers are able to "reason" with facts and rules in a limited setting where the rules are natural language expressions of conjunctions of conditions implying a conclusion. Since this suggests that transformers may be used for reasoning with knowledge given in natural language, we do a rigorous evaluation of this with respect to a common form of knowledge and its corresponding reasoning -- the reasoning about effects of actions. Reasoning about action and change has been a top focus in the knowledge representation subfield of AI from the early days of AI and more recently it has been a highlight aspect in common sense question answering. We consider four action domains (Blocks World, Logistics, Dock-Worker-Robots and a Generic Domain) in natural language and create QA datasets that involve reasoning about the effects of actions in these domains. We investigate the ability of transformers to (a) learn to reason in these domains and (b) transfer that learning from the generic domains to the other domains.

Numerical reasoning is often important to accurately understand the world. Recently, several format-specific datasets have been proposed, such as numerical reasoning in the settings of Natural Language Inference (NLI), Reading Comprehension (RC), and Question Answering (QA). Several format-specific models and architectures in response to those datasets have also been proposed. However, there exists a strong need for a benchmark which can evaluate the abilities of models, in performing question format independent numerical reasoning, as (i) the numerical reasoning capabilities we want to teach are not controlled by question formats, (ii) for numerical reasoning technology to have the best possible application, it must be able to process language and reason in a way that is not exclusive to a single format, task, dataset or domain. In pursuit of this goal, we introduce NUMBERGAME, a multifaceted benchmark to evaluate model performance across numerical reasoning tasks of eight diverse formats. We add four existing question types in our compilation. Two of the new types we add are about questions that require external numerical knowledge, commonsense knowledge and domain knowledge. For building a more practical numerical reasoning system, NUMBERGAME demands four capabilities beyond numerical reasoning: (i) detecting question format directly from data (ii) finding intermediate common format to which every format can be converted (iii) incorporating commonsense knowledge (iv) handling data imbalance across formats. We build several baselines, including a new model based on knowledge hunting using a cheatsheet. However, all baselines perform poorly in contrast to the human baselines, indicating the hardness of our benchmark. Our work takes forward the recent progress in generic system development, demonstrating the scope of these under-explored tasks.