The recent advent of large language models has reinvigorated debate over whether human cognitive capacities might emerge in such generic models given sufficient training data. Of particular interest is the ability of these models to reason about novel problems zero-shot, without any direct training. In human cognition, this capacity is closely tied to an ability to reason by analogy. Here, we performed a direct comparison between human reasoners and a large language model (the text-davinci-003 variant of GPT-3) on a range of analogical tasks, including a novel text-based matrix reasoning task closely modeled on Raven's Progressive Matrices. We found that GPT-3 displayed a surprisingly strong capacity for abstract pattern induction, matching or even surpassing human capabilities in most settings. Our results indicate that large language models such as GPT-3 have acquired an emergent ability to find zero-shot solutions to a broad range of analogy problems.
相關內容
Rigorous evaluation of the causal effects of semantic features on language model predictions can be hard to achieve for natural language reasoning problems. However, this is such a desirable form of analysis from both an interpretability and model evaluation perspective, that it is valuable to zone in on specific patterns of reasoning with enough structure and regularity to be able to identify and quantify systematic reasoning failures in widely-used models. In this vein, we pick a portion of the NLI task for which an explicit causal diagram can be systematically constructed: in particular, the case where across two sentences (the premise and hypothesis), two related words/terms occur in a shared context. In this work, we apply causal effect estimation strategies to measure the effect of context interventions (whose effect on the entailment label is mediated by the semantic monotonicity characteristic) and interventions on the inserted word-pair (whose effect on the entailment label is mediated by the relation between these words.). Following related work on causal analysis of NLP models in different settings, we adapt the methodology for the NLI task to construct comparative model profiles in terms of robustness to irrelevant changes and sensitivity to impactful changes.
Despite the remarkable success of large-scale Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3, their performances still significantly underperform fine-tuned models in the task of text classification. This is due to (1) the lack of reasoning ability in addressing complex linguistic phenomena (e.g., intensification, contrast, irony etc); (2) limited number of tokens allowed in in-context learning. In this paper, we introduce \textbf{C}lue \textbf{A}nd \textbf{R}easoning \textbf{P}rompting (CARP). CARP adopts a progressive reasoning strategy tailored to addressing the complex linguistic phenomena involved in text classification: CARP first prompts LLMs to find superficial clues (e.g., keywords, tones, semantic relations, references, etc), based on which a diagnostic reasoning process is induced for final decisions. To further address the limited-token issue, CARP uses a fine-tuned model on the supervised dataset for $k$NN demonstration search in the in-context learning, allowing the model to take the advantage of both LLM's generalization ability and the task-specific evidence provided by the full labeled dataset. Remarkably, CARP yields new SOTA performances on 4 out of 5 widely-used text-classification benchmarks, 97.39 (+1.24) on SST-2, 96.40 (+0.72) on AGNews, 98.78 (+0.25) on R8 and 96.95 (+0.6) on R52, and a performance comparable to SOTA on MR (92.39 v.s. 93.3). More importantly, we find that CARP delivers impressive abilities on low-resource and domain-adaptation setups. Specifically, Specifically, using 16 examples per class, CARP achieves comparable performances to supervised models with 1,024 examples per class.
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.
Over the past decade, analogies, in the form of word-level analogies, have played a significant role as an intrinsic measure of evaluating the quality of word embedding methods such as word2vec. Modern large language models (LLMs), however, are primarily evaluated on extrinsic measures based on benchmarks such as GLUE and SuperGLUE, and there are only a few investigations on whether LLMs can draw analogies between long texts. In this paper, we present ANALOGICAL, a new benchmark to intrinsically evaluate LLMs across a taxonomy of analogies of long text with six levels of complexity -- (i) word, (ii) word vs. sentence, (iii) syntactic, (iv) negation, (v) entailment, and (vi) metaphor. Using thirteen datasets and three different distance measures, we evaluate the abilities of eight LLMs in identifying analogical pairs in the semantic vector space. Our evaluation finds that it is increasingly challenging for LLMs to identify analogies when going up the analogy taxonomy.
A Conversational Recommender System (CRS) offers increased transparency and control to users by enabling them to engage with the system through a real-time multi-turn dialogue. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited an unprecedented ability to converse naturally and incorporate world knowledge and common-sense reasoning into language understanding, unlocking the potential of this paradigm. However, effectively leveraging LLMs within a CRS introduces new technical challenges, including properly understanding and controlling a complex conversation and retrieving from external sources of information. These issues are exacerbated by a large, evolving item corpus and a lack of conversational data for training. In this paper, we provide a roadmap for building an end-to-end large-scale CRS using LLMs. In particular, we propose new implementations for user preference understanding, flexible dialogue management and explainable recommendations as part of an integrated architecture powered by LLMs. For improved personalization, we describe how an LLM can consume interpretable natural language user profiles and use them to modulate session-level context. To overcome conversational data limitations in the absence of an existing production CRS, we propose techniques for building a controllable LLM-based user simulator to generate synthetic conversations. As a proof of concept we introduce RecLLM, a large-scale CRS for YouTube videos built on LaMDA, and demonstrate its fluency and diverse functionality through some illustrative example conversations.
A large literature suggests that people are intuitive Dualists--they consider the mind ethereal, distinct from the body. Past research also shows that Dualism emerges, in part, via learning (e.g., Barlev & Shtulman, 2021). But whether learning is sufficient to give rise to Dualism is unknown.The evidence from human learners does address this question because humans are endowed not only with general learning capacities but also with core knowledge capacities. And recent results suggest that core knowledge begets Dualism (Berent, Theodore & Valencia, 2021; Berent, 2023). To evaluate the role of learning, here, we probe for a mind-body divide in Davinci--a large language model (LLM) that is devoid of any innate core knowledge. We show that Davinci still leans towards Dualism, and that this bias increases systematically with the learner's inductive potential. Thus, davinci (a GPT-3 model) exhibits mild Dualist tendencies, whereas its descendent, text-davinci-003 (a GPT-3.5 model), shows a full-blown bias. It selectively considers thoughts (epistemic states) as disembodied--as unlikely to show up in the body (in the brain), but not in its absence (after death). While Davinci's performance is constrained by its syntactic limitations, and it differs from humans, its Dualist bias is robust. These results demonstrate that the mind-body divide is partly learnable from experience.They also show how, as LLM's are exposed to human narratives, they induce not only human knowledge but also human biases.
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.
The problem of answering questions using knowledge from pre-trained language models (LMs) and knowledge graphs (KGs) presents two challenges: given a QA context (question and answer choice), methods need to (i) identify relevant knowledge from large KGs, and (ii) perform joint reasoning over the QA context and KG. In this work, we propose a new model, QA-GNN, which addresses the above challenges through two key innovations: (i) relevance scoring, where we use LMs to estimate the importance of KG nodes relative to the given QA context, and (ii) joint reasoning, where we connect the QA context and KG to form a joint graph, and mutually update their representations through graph neural networks. We evaluate QA-GNN on the CommonsenseQA and OpenBookQA datasets, and show its improvement over existing LM and LM+KG models, as well as its capability to perform interpretable and structured reasoning, e.g., correctly handling negation in questions.
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.
In this paper, we propose Latent Relation Language Models (LRLMs), a class of language models that parameterizes the joint distribution over the words in a document and the entities that occur therein via knowledge graph relations. This model has a number of attractive properties: it not only improves language modeling performance, but is also able to annotate the posterior probability of entity spans for a given text through relations. Experiments demonstrate empirical improvements over both a word-based baseline language model and a previous approach that incorporates knowledge graph information. Qualitative analysis further demonstrates the proposed model's ability to learn to predict appropriate relations in context.
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