Given the intractably large size of the space of proofs, any model that is capable of general deductive reasoning must generalize to proofs of greater complexity. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) possess some abstract deductive reasoning ability given chain-of-thought prompts. However, they have primarily been tested on proofs using modus ponens or of a specific size, and from the same distribution as the in-context examples. To measure the general deductive reasoning ability of LLMs, we test on a broad set of deduction rules and measure their ability to generalize to more complex proofs from simpler demonstrations from multiple angles: depth-, width-, and compositional generalization. To facilitate systematic exploration, we construct a new synthetic and programmable reasoning dataset that enables control over deduction rules and proof complexity. Our experiments on four LLMs of various sizes and training objectives show that they are able to generalize to longer and compositional proofs. However, they require explicit demonstrations to produce hypothetical subproofs, specifically in proof by cases and proof by contradiction.
相關內容
Logical reasoning consistently plays a fundamental and significant role in the domains of knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a noteworthy innovation in natural language processing (NLP), exhibiting impressive achievements across various classic NLP tasks. However, the question of whether LLMs can effectively address the task of logical reasoning, which requires gradual cognitive inference similar to human intelligence, remains unanswered. To this end, we aim to bridge this gap and provide comprehensive evaluations in this paper. Firstly, to offer systematic evaluations, we select fifteen typical logical reasoning datasets and organize them into deductive, inductive, abductive and mixed-form reasoning settings. Considering the comprehensiveness of evaluations, we include three representative LLMs (i.e., text-davinci-003, ChatGPT and BARD) and evaluate them on all selected datasets under zero-shot, one-shot and three-shot settings. Secondly, different from previous evaluations relying only on simple metrics (e.g., accuracy), we propose fine-level evaluations from objective and subjective manners, covering both answers and explanations. Additionally, to uncover the logical flaws of LLMs, problematic cases will be attributed to five error types from two dimensions, i.e., evidence selection process and reasoning process. Thirdly, to avoid the influences of knowledge bias and purely focus on benchmarking the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a new dataset with neutral content. It contains 3,000 samples and covers deductive, inductive and abductive settings. Based on the in-depth evaluations, this paper finally forms a general evaluation scheme of logical reasoning capability from six dimensions. It reflects the pros and cons of LLMs and gives guiding directions for future works.
Learning on Graphs has attracted immense attention due to its wide real-world applications. The most popular pipeline for learning on graphs with textual node attributes primarily relies on Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), and utilizes shallow text embedding as initial node representations, which has limitations in general knowledge and profound semantic understanding. In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been proven to possess extensive common knowledge and powerful semantic comprehension abilities that have revolutionized existing workflows to handle text data. In this paper, we aim to explore the potential of LLMs in graph machine learning, especially the node classification task, and investigate two possible pipelines: LLMs-as-Enhancers and LLMs-as-Predictors. The former leverages LLMs to enhance nodes' text attributes with their massive knowledge and then generate predictions through GNNs. The latter attempts to directly employ LLMs as standalone predictors. We conduct comprehensive and systematical studies on these two pipelines under various settings. From comprehensive empirical results, we make original observations and find new insights that open new possibilities and suggest promising directions to leverage LLMs for learning on graphs.
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry, owing to their unprecedented performance in various applications. As LLMs continue to play a vital role in both research and daily use, their evaluation becomes increasingly critical, not only at the task level, but also at the society level for better understanding of their potential risks. Over the past years, significant efforts have been made to examine LLMs from various perspectives. This paper presents a comprehensive review of these evaluation methods for LLMs, focusing on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate. Firstly, we provide an overview from the perspective of evaluation tasks, encompassing general natural language processing tasks, reasoning, medical usage, ethics, educations, natural and social sciences, agent applications, and other areas. Secondly, we answer the `where' and `how' questions by diving into the evaluation methods and benchmarks, which serve as crucial components in assessing performance of LLMs. Then, we summarize the success and failure cases of LLMs in different tasks. Finally, we shed light on several future challenges that lie ahead in LLMs evaluation. Our aim is to offer invaluable insights to researchers in the realm of LLMs evaluation, thereby aiding the development of more proficient LLMs. Our key point is that evaluation should be treated as an essential discipline to better assist the development of LLMs. We consistently maintain the related open-source materials at: //github.com/MLGroupJLU/LLM-eval-survey.
Current large language models can perform reasonably well on complex tasks that require step-by-step reasoning with few-shot learning. Are these models applying reasoning skills they have learnt during pre-training and reason outside of their training context, or are they simply memorizing their training corpus at finer granularity and have learnt to better understand their context? To tease apart these possibilities, we introduce ALERT, a benchmark and suite of analyses for assessing language models' reasoning ability comparing pre-trained and finetuned models on complex tasks that require reasoning skills to solve. ALERT provides a test bed to asses any language model on fine-grained reasoning skills, which spans over 20 datasets and covers 10 different reasoning skills. We leverage ALERT to further investigate the role of finetuning. With extensive empirical analysis we find that language models learn more reasoning skills such as textual entailment, abductive reasoning, and analogical reasoning during finetuning stage compared to pretraining state. We also find that when language models are finetuned they tend to overfit to the prompt template, which hurts the robustness of models causing generalization problems.
Understanding labour market dynamics requires accurately identifying the skills required for and possessed by the workforce. Automation techniques are increasingly being developed to support this effort. However, automatically extracting skills from job postings is challenging due to the vast number of existing skills. The ESCO (European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations) framework provides a useful reference, listing over 13,000 individual skills. However, skills extraction remains difficult and accurately matching job posts to the ESCO taxonomy is an open problem. In this work, we propose an end-to-end zero-shot system for skills extraction from job descriptions based on large language models (LLMs). We generate synthetic training data for the entirety of ESCO skills and train a classifier to extract skill mentions from job posts. We also employ a similarity retriever to generate skill candidates which are then re-ranked using a second LLM. Using synthetic data achieves an RP@10 score 10 points higher than previous distant supervision approaches. Adding GPT-4 re-ranking improves RP@10 by over 22 points over previous methods. We also show that Framing the task as mock programming when prompting the LLM can lead to better performance than natural language prompts, especially with weaker LLMs. We demonstrate the potential of integrating large language models at both ends of skills matching pipelines. Our approach requires no human annotations and achieve extremely promising results on skills extraction against ESCO.
Lexical matching remains the de facto evaluation method for open-domain question answering (QA). Unfortunately, lexical matching fails completely when a plausible candidate answer does not appear in the list of gold answers, which is increasingly the case as we shift from extractive to generative models. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) for QA aggravates lexical matching failures since candidate answers become longer, thereby making matching with the gold answers even more challenging. Without accurate evaluation, the true progress in open-domain QA remains unknown. In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of various open-domain QA models, including LLMs, by manually evaluating their answers on a subset of NQ-open, a popular benchmark. Our assessments reveal that while the true performance of all models is significantly underestimated, the performance of the InstructGPT (zero-shot) LLM increases by nearly +60%, making it on par with existing top models, and the InstructGPT (few-shot) model actually achieves a new state-of-the-art on NQ-open. We also find that more than 50% of lexical matching failures are attributed to semantically equivalent answers. We further demonstrate that regex matching ranks QA models consistent with human judgments, although still suffering from unnecessary strictness. Finally, we demonstrate that automated evaluation models are a reasonable surrogate for lexical matching in some circumstances, but not for long-form answers generated by LLMs. The automated models struggle in detecting hallucinations in LLM answers and are thus unable to evaluate LLMs. At this time, there appears to be no substitute for human evaluation.
Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.
Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) have been widely applied in various fields due to their significant power on processing graph-structured data. Typical GCN and its variants work under a homophily assumption (i.e., nodes with same class are prone to connect to each other), while ignoring the heterophily which exists in many real-world networks (i.e., nodes with different classes tend to form edges). Existing methods deal with heterophily by mainly aggregating higher-order neighborhoods or combing the immediate representations, which leads to noise and irrelevant information in the result. But these methods did not change the propagation mechanism which works under homophily assumption (that is a fundamental part of GCNs). This makes it difficult to distinguish the representation of nodes from different classes. To address this problem, in this paper we design a novel propagation mechanism, which can automatically change the propagation and aggregation process according to homophily or heterophily between node pairs. To adaptively learn the propagation process, we introduce two measurements of homophily degree between node pairs, which is learned based on topological and attribute information, respectively. Then we incorporate the learnable homophily degree into the graph convolution framework, which is trained in an end-to-end schema, enabling it to go beyond the assumption of homophily. More importantly, we theoretically prove that our model can constrain the similarity of representations between nodes according to their homophily degree. Experiments on seven real-world datasets demonstrate that this new approach outperforms the state-of-the-art methods under heterophily or low homophily, and gains competitive performance under homophily.
Existing Collaborative Filtering (CF) methods are mostly designed based on the idea of matching, i.e., by learning user and item embeddings from data using shallow or deep models, they try to capture the associative relevance patterns in data, so that a user embedding can be matched with relevant item embeddings using designed or learned similarity functions. However, as a cognition rather than a perception intelligent task, recommendation requires not only the ability of pattern recognition and matching from data, but also the ability of cognitive reasoning in data. In this paper, we propose to advance Collaborative Filtering (CF) to Collaborative Reasoning (CR), which means that each user knows part of the reasoning space, and they collaborate for reasoning in the space to estimate preferences for each other. Technically, we propose a Neural Collaborative Reasoning (NCR) framework to bridge learning and reasoning. Specifically, we integrate the power of representation learning and logical reasoning, where representations capture similarity patterns in data from perceptual perspectives, and logic facilitates cognitive reasoning for informed decision making. An important challenge, however, is to bridge differentiable neural networks and symbolic reasoning in a shared architecture for optimization and inference. To solve the problem, we propose a modularized reasoning architecture, which learns logical operations such as AND ($\wedge$), OR ($\vee$) and NOT ($\neg$) as neural modules for implication reasoning ($\rightarrow$). In this way, logical expressions can be equivalently organized as neural networks, so that logical reasoning and prediction can be conducted in a continuous space. Experiments on real-world datasets verified the advantages of our framework compared with both shallow, deep and reasoning models.
Reasoning with knowledge expressed in natural language and Knowledge Bases (KBs) is a major challenge for Artificial Intelligence, with applications in machine reading, dialogue, and question answering. General neural architectures that jointly learn representations and transformations of text are very data-inefficient, and it is hard to analyse their reasoning process. These issues are addressed by end-to-end differentiable reasoning systems such as Neural Theorem Provers (NTPs), although they can only be used with small-scale symbolic KBs. In this paper we first propose Greedy NTPs (GNTPs), an extension to NTPs addressing their complexity and scalability limitations, thus making them applicable to real-world datasets. This result is achieved by dynamically constructing the computation graph of NTPs and including only the most promising proof paths during inference, thus obtaining orders of magnitude more efficient models. Then, we propose a novel approach for jointly reasoning over KBs and textual mentions, by embedding logic facts and natural language sentences in a shared embedding space. We show that GNTPs perform on par with NTPs at a fraction of their cost while achieving competitive link prediction results on large datasets, providing explanations for predictions, and inducing interpretable models. Source code, datasets, and supplementary material are available online at //github.com/uclnlp/gntp.
小貼士
登錄享
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191