Memory-assisted prompt editing to improve GPT-3 after deployment

Large LMs such as GPT-3, while powerful, are not immune to mistakes, but are prohibitively costly to retrain. One failure mode is misinterpreting a user's instruction (e.g., GPT-3 interpreting "What word is similar to good?" to mean a homonym, while the user intended a synonym). Our goal is to allow users to correct such errors directly through interaction -- without retraining. Our approach pairs GPT-3 with a growing memory of cases where the model misunderstood the user's intent and was provided with feedback, clarifying the instruction. Given a new query, our memory-enhanced GPT-3 uses feedback from similar, prior queries to enrich the prompt. Through simple proof-of-concept experiments, we show how a (simulated) user can interactively teach a deployed GPT-3, doubling its accuracy on basic lexical tasks (e.g., generate a synonym) where users query in different, novel (often misunderstood) ways. In such scenarios, memory helps avoid repeating similar past mistakes. Our simple idea is a first step towards strengthening deployed models, potentially broadening their utility. All the code and data is available at https://github.com/madaan/memprompt.

Improving scripts with a memory of natural feedback

How can an end-user provide feedback if a deployed structured prediction model generates incorrect output? Our goal is to allow users to correct errors directly through interaction, without retraining, by giving feedback on the model's output. We create a dynamic memory architecture with a growing memory of feedbacks about errors in the output. Given a new, unseen input, our model can use feedback from a similar, past erroneous state. On a script generation task, we show empirically that the model learns to apply feedback effectively (up to 30 points improvement), while avoiding similar past mistakes after deployment (up to 10 points improvement on an unseen set). This is a first step towards strengthening deployed models, potentially broadening their utility.

Interscript: A dataset for interactive learning of scripts through error feedback

How can an end-user provide feedback if a deployed structured prediction model generates inconsistent output, ignoring the structural complexity of human language? This is an emerging topic with recent progress in synthetic or constrained settings, and the next big leap would require testing and tuning models in real-world settings. We present a new dataset, Interscript, containing user feedback on a deployed model that generates complex everyday tasks. Interscript contains 8,466 data points -- the input is a possibly erroneous script and a user feedback, and the output is a modified script. We posit two use-cases of \ours that might significantly advance the state-of-the-art in interactive learning. The dataset is available at: https://github.com/allenai/interscript.

Think about it! Improving defeasible reasoning by first modeling the question scenario

Defeasible reasoning is the mode of reasoning where conclusions can be overturned by taking into account new evidence. Existing cognitive science literature on defeasible reasoning suggests that a person forms a mental model of the problem scenario before answering questions. Our research goal asks whether neural models can similarly benefit from envisioning the question scenario before answering a defeasible query. Our approach is, given a question, to have a model first create a graph of relevant influences, and then leverage that graph as an additional input when answering the question. Our system, CURIOUS, achieves a new state-of-the-art on three different defeasible reasoning datasets. This result is significant as it illustrates that performance can be improved by guiding a system to "think about" a question and explicitly model the scenario, rather than answering reflexively. Code, data, and pre-trained models are located at https://github.com/madaan/thinkaboutit.

Could you give me a hint? Generating inference graphs for defeasible reasoning

Defeasible reasoning is the mode of reasoning where conclusions can be overturned by taking into account new evidence. A commonly used method in cognitive science and logic literature is to handcraft argumentation supporting inference graphs. While humans find inference graphs very useful for reasoning, constructing them at scale is difficult. In this paper, we automatically generate such inference graphs through transfer learning from another NLP task that shares the kind of reasoning that inference graphs support. Through automated metrics and human evaluation, we find that our method generates meaningful graphs for the defeasible inference task. Human accuracy on this task improves by 20% by consulting the generated graphs. Our findings open up exciting new research avenues for cases where machine reasoning can help human reasoning. (A dataset of 230,000 influence graphs for each defeasible query is located at: https://tinyurl.com/defeasiblegraphs.)

Improving Neural Model Performance through Natural Language Feedback on Their Explanations

A class of explainable NLP models for reasoning tasks support their decisions by generating free-form or structured explanations, but what happens when these supporting structures contain errors? Our goal is to allow users to interactively correct explanation structures through natural language feedback. We introduce MERCURIE - an interactive system that refines its explanations for a given reasoning task by getting human feedback in natural language. Our approach generates graphs that have 40% fewer inconsistencies as compared with the off-the-shelf system. Further, simply appending the corrected explanation structures to the output leads to a gain of 1.2 points on accuracy on defeasible reasoning across all three domains. We release a dataset of over 450k graphs for defeasible reasoning generated by our system at https://tinyurl.com/mercurie .

CURIE: An Iterative Querying Approach for Reasoning About Situations

Recently, models have been shown to predict the effects of unexpected situations, e.g., would cloudy skies help or hinder plant growth? Given a context, the goal of such situational reasoning is to elicit the consequences of a new situation (st) that arises in that context. We propose a method to iteratively build a graph of relevant consequences explicitly in a structured situational graph (st-graph) using natural language queries over a finetuned language model (M). Across multiple domains, CURIE generates st-graphs that humans find relevant and meaningful in eliciting the consequences of a new situation. We show that st-graphs generated by CURIE improve a situational reasoning end task (WIQA-QA) by 3 points on accuracy by simply augmenting their input with our generated situational graphs, especially for a hard subset that requires background knowledge and multi-hop reasoning.

The GEM Benchmark: Natural Language Generation, its Evaluation and Metrics

We introduce GEM, a living benchmark for natural language Generation (NLG), its Evaluation, and Metrics. Measuring progress in NLG relies on a constantly evolving ecosystem of automated metrics, datasets, and human evaluation standards. However, due to this moving target, new models often still evaluate on divergent anglo-centric corpora with well-established, but flawed, metrics. This disconnect makes it challenging to identify the limitations of current models and opportunities for progress. Addressing this limitation, GEM provides an environment in which models can easily be applied to a wide set of corpora and evaluation strategies can be tested. Regular updates to the benchmark will help NLG research become more multilingual and evolve the challenge alongside models. This paper serves as the description of the initial release for which we are organizing a shared task at our ACL 2021 Workshop and to which we invite the entire NLG community to participate.