This study evaluates the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on SemEval-2020 Task 4 dataset, focusing on commonsense validation and explanation. Our methodology involves evaluating multiple LLMs, including LLaMA3-70B, Gemma2-9B, and Mixtral-8x7B, using zero-shot prompting techniques. The models are tested on two tasks: Task A (Commonsense Validation), where models determine whether a statement aligns with commonsense knowledge, and Task B (Commonsense Explanation), where models identify the reasoning behind implausible statements. Performance is assessed based on accuracy, and results are compared to fine-tuned transformer-based models. The results indicate that larger models outperform previous models and perform closely to human evaluation for Task A, with LLaMA3-70B achieving the highest accuracy of 98.40% in Task A whereas, lagging behind previous models with 93.40% in Task B. However, while models effectively identify implausible statements, they face challenges in selecting the most relevant explanation, highlighting limitations in causal and inferential reasoning.

In this paper, we present language model system submitted to SemEval-2020 Task 4 competition: "Commonsense Validation and Explanation". We participate in two subtasks for subtask A: validation and subtask B: Explanation. We implemented with transfer learning using pretrained language models (BERT, XLNet, RoBERTa, and ALBERT) and fine-tune them on this task. Then we compared their characteristics in this task to help future researchers understand and use these models more properly. The ensembled model better solves this problem, making the model's accuracy reached 95.9% on subtask A, which just worse than human's by only 3% accuracy.

In this paper, we present SemEval-2020 Task 4, Commonsense Validation and Explanation (ComVE), which includes three subtasks, aiming to evaluate whether a system can distinguish a natural language statement that makes sense to humans from one that does not, and provide the reasons. Specifically, in our first subtask, the participating systems are required to choose from two natural language statements of similar wording the one that makes sense and the one does not. The second subtask additionally asks a system to select the key reason from three options why a given statement does not make sense. In the third subtask, a participating system needs to generate the reason. We finally attracted 39 teams participating at least one of the three subtasks. For Subtask A and Subtask B, the performances of top-ranked systems are close to that of humans. However, for Subtask C, there is still a relatively large gap between systems and human performance.

This paper describes our submission to subtask a and b of SemEval-2020 Task 4. For subtask a, we use a ALBERT based model with improved input form to pick out the common sense statement from two statement candidates. For subtask b, we use a multiple choice model enhanced by hint sentence mechanism to select the reason from given options about why a statement is against common sense. Besides, we propose a novel transfer learning strategy between subtasks which help improve the performance. The accuracy scores of our system are 95.6 / 94.9 on official test set and rank 7$^{th}$ / 2$^{nd}$ on Post-Evaluation leaderboard.