Modern Question Answering (QA) and Reasoning approaches based on Large Language Models (LLMs) commonly use prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), assuming the resulting generation will have a more granular exploration and reasoning over the question space and scope. However, such methods struggle with generating outputs that are faithful to the intermediate chain of reasoning produced by the model. On the other end of the spectrum, neuro-symbolic methods such as Faithful CoT (F-CoT) propose to combine LLMs with external symbolic solvers. While such approaches boast a high degree of faithfulness, they usually require a model trained for code generation and struggle with tasks that are ambiguous or hard to formalise strictly. We introduce $\textbf{F}$aithful $\textbf{L}$ogic-$\textbf{A}$ided $\textbf{R}$easoning and $\textbf{E}$xploration ($\textbf{FLARE}$), a novel interpretable approach for traversing the problem space using task decompositions. We use the LLM to plan a solution, soft-formalise the query into facts and predicates using a logic programming code and simulate that code execution using an exhaustive multi-hop search over the defined space. Our method allows us to compute the faithfulness of the reasoning process w.r.t. the generated code and analyse the steps of the multi-hop search without relying on external solvers. Our methods achieve SOTA results on $\mathbf{7}$ out of $\mathbf{9}$ diverse reasoning benchmarks. We also show that model faithfulness positively correlates with overall performance and further demonstrate that $\textbf{FLARE}$ allows pinpointing the decisive factors sufficient for and leading to the correct answer with optimal reasoning during the multi-hop search.

The context window of large language models (LLMs) has been extended significantly in recent years. However, while the context length that the LLM can process has grown, the capability of the model to accurately reason over that context degrades noticeably. This occurs because modern LLMs often become overwhelmed by the vast amount of information in the context; when answering questions, the model must identify and reason over relevant evidence sparsely distributed throughout the text. To alleviate the challenge of long-context reasoning, we develop a retrieve-then-reason framework, enabling LLMs to reason over relevant evidence collected during an intermediate retrieval step. We find that modern LLMs struggle to accurately retrieve relevant facts and instead, often hallucinate "retrieved facts", resulting in flawed reasoning and the production of incorrect answers. Through extensive experiments on long-context QA benchmarks, we find our method to outperform competitive baselines by large margins, achieving at least 8.4 and 7.9 EM gains on the long-context versions of HotpotQA and SQuAD datasets, respectively. While these developments are promising, in our preliminary study, we show that the long-context performance of LLMs varied significantly across different tasks. We observe that, when tasked to generate answers by directly reasoning over the full context, performance degrades as the input context grows. In contrast, when tasked with retrieving the set of evidence relevant to the question, the performance of LLMs is only mildly affected by the growth of the input context.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have become more advanced, they have outpaced our abilities to accurately evaluate their quality. Not only is finding data to adequately probe particular model properties difficult, but evaluating the correctness of a model's freeform generation alone is a challenge. To address this, many evaluations now rely on using LLMs themselves as judges to score the quality of outputs from other LLMs. Evaluations most commonly use a single large model like GPT4. While this method has grown in popularity, it is costly, has been shown to introduce intramodel bias, and in this work, we find that very large models are often unnecessary. We propose instead to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL). Across three distinct judge settings and spanning six different datasets, we find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive results while requiring little or no direct supervision. Further, there is mounting evidence that LLMs may have potential in information-seeking scenarios. We believe the ability of an LLM to attribute the text that it generates is likely to be crucial in this setting. We formulate and study Attributed QA as a key first step in the development of attributed LLMs. We propose a reproducible evaluation framework for the task and benchmark a broad set of architectures. We take human annotations as a gold standard and show that a correlated automatic metric is suitable for development. Our experimental work gives concrete answers to two key questions (How to measure attribution?, and How well do current state-of-the-art methods perform on attribution?), and give some hints as to how to address a third (How to build LLMs with attribution?).

Retrieval augmented language models have recently become the standard for knowledge intensive tasks. Rather than relying purely on latent semantics within the parameters of large neural models, these methods enlist a semi-parametric memory to encode an index of knowledge for the model to retrieve over. Most prior work has employed text passages as the unit of knowledge, which has high coverage at the cost of interpretability, controllability, and efficiency. The opposite properties arise in other methods which have instead relied on knowledge base (KB) facts. At the same time, more recent work has demonstrated the effectiveness of storing and retrieving from an index of Q-A pairs derived from text \citep{lewis2021paq}. This approach yields a high coverage knowledge representation that maintains KB-like properties due to its representations being more atomic units of information. In this work we push this line of research further by proposing a question-answer augmented encoder-decoder model and accompanying pretraining strategy. This yields an end-to-end system that not only outperforms prior QA retrieval methods on single-hop QA tasks but also enables compositional reasoning, as demonstrated by strong performance on two multi-hop QA datasets. Together, these methods improve the ability to interpret and control the model while narrowing the performance gap with passage retrieval systems.

Recent advances in open-domain question answering (ODQA) have demonstrated impressive accuracy on standard Wikipedia style benchmarks. However, it is less clear how robust these models are and how well they perform when applied to real-world applications in drastically different domains. While there has been some work investigating how well ODQA models perform when tested for out-of-domain (OOD) generalization, these studies have been conducted only under conservative shifts in data distribution and typically focus on a single component (ie. retrieval) rather than an end-to-end system. In response, we propose a more realistic and challenging domain shift evaluation setting and, through extensive experiments, study end-to-end model performance. We find that not only do models fail to generalize, but high retrieval scores often still yield poor answer prediction accuracy. We then categorize different types of shifts and propose techniques that, when presented with a new dataset, predict if intervention methods are likely to be successful. Finally, using insights from this analysis, we propose and evaluate several intervention methods which improve end-to-end answer F1 score by up to 24 points.

We present the Open Predicate Query Language (OPQL); a method for constructing a virtual KB (VKB) trained entirely from text. Large Knowledge Bases (KBs) are indispensable for a wide-range of industry applications such as question answering and recommendation. Typically, KBs encode world knowledge in a structured, readily accessible form derived from laborious human annotation efforts. Unfortunately, while they are extremely high precision, KBs are inevitably highly incomplete and automated methods for enriching them are far too inaccurate. Instead, OPQL constructs a VKB by encoding and indexing a set of relation mentions in a way that naturally enables reasoning and can be trained without any structured supervision. We demonstrate that OPQL outperforms prior VKB methods on two different KB reasoning tasks and, additionally, can be used as an external memory integrated into a language model (OPQL-LM) leading to improvements on two open-domain question answering tasks.

Massive language models are the core of modern NLP modeling and have been shown to encode impressive amounts of commonsense and factual information. However, that knowledge exists only within the latent parameters of the model, inaccessible to inspection and interpretation, and even worse, factual information memorized from the training corpora is likely to become stale as the world changes. Knowledge stored as parameters will also inevitably exhibit all of the biases inherent in the source materials. To address these problems, we develop a neural language model that includes an explicit interface between symbolically interpretable factual information and subsymbolic neural knowledge. We show that this model dramatically improves performance on two knowledge-intensive question-answering tasks. More interestingly, the model can be updated without re-training by manipulating its symbolic representations. In particular this model allows us to add new facts and overwrite existing ones in ways that are not possible for earlier models.