Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models

Conceptual reasoning, the ability to reason in abstract and high-level perspectives, is key to generalization in human cognition. However, limited study has been done on large language models' capability to perform conceptual reasoning. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions and generate solutions in a verifiable symbolic space. Using this framework as an analytical tool, we show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks compared to direct inference methods. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making. We propose two techniques to add trustworthy induction signals by generating familiar questions with similar underlying reasoning paths and asking models to perform self-refinement. Experiments show that our proposed techniques improve models' conceptual reasoning performance by 8% to 11%, achieving a more robust reasoning system that relies less on inductive biases.

Multi-Agent VQA: Exploring Multi-Agent Foundation Models in Zero-Shot Visual Question Answering

This work explores the zero-shot capabilities of foundation models in Visual Question Answering (VQA) tasks. We propose an adaptive multi-agent system, named Multi-Agent VQA, to overcome the limitations of foundation models in object detection and counting by using specialized agents as tools. Unlike existing approaches, our study focuses on the system's performance without fine-tuning it on specific VQA datasets, making it more practical and robust in the open world. We present preliminary experimental results under zero-shot scenarios and highlight some failure cases, offering new directions for future research.

From Instructions to Constraints: Language Model Alignment with Automatic Constraint Verification

User alignment is crucial for adapting general-purpose language models (LMs) to downstream tasks, but human annotations are often not available for all types of instructions, especially those with customized constraints. We observe that user instructions typically contain constraints. While assessing response quality in terms of the whole instruction is often costly, efficiently evaluating the satisfaction rate of constraints is feasible. We investigate common constraints in NLP tasks, categorize them into three classes based on the types of their arguments, and propose a unified framework, ACT (Aligning to ConsTraints), to automatically produce supervision signals for user alignment with constraints. Specifically, ACT uses constraint verifiers, which are typically easy to implement in practice, to compute constraint satisfaction rate (CSR) of each response. It samples multiple responses for each prompt and collect preference labels based on their CSR automatically. Subsequently, ACT adapts the LM to the target task through a ranking-based learning process. Experiments on fine-grained entity typing, abstractive summarization, and temporal question answering show that ACT is able to enhance LMs' capability to adhere to different classes of constraints, thereby improving task performance. Further experiments show that the constraint-following capabilities are transferable.

Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical Reasoning in Financial Document Question Answering

Large Language Models (LLMs), excel in natural language understanding, but their capability for complex mathematical reasoning with an amalgamation of structured tables and unstructured text is uncertain. This study explores LLMs' mathematical reasoning on four financial tabular question-answering datasets: TATQA, FinQA, ConvFinQA, and Multihiertt. Through extensive experiments with various models and prompting techniques, we assess how LLMs adapt to complex tables and mathematical tasks. We focus on sensitivity to table complexity and performance variations with an increasing number of arithmetic reasoning steps. The results provide insights into LLMs' capabilities and limitations in handling complex mathematical scenarios for semi-structured tables. Ultimately, we introduce a novel prompting technique tailored to semi-structured documents, matching or outperforming other baselines in performance while providing a nuanced understanding of LLMs abilities for such a task.

DeAL: Decoding-time Alignment for Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are nowadays expected to generate content aligned with human preferences. Current work focuses on alignment at model training time, through techniques such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). However, it is unclear if such methods are an effective choice to teach alignment objectives to the model. First, the inability to incorporate multiple, custom rewards and reliance on a model developer's view of universal and static principles are key limitations. Second, the residual gaps in model training and the reliability of such approaches are also questionable (e.g. susceptibility to jail-breaking even after safety training). To address these, we propose DeAL, a framework that allows the user to customize reward functions and enables Decoding-time Alignment of LLMs (DeAL). At its core, we view decoding as a heuristic-guided search process and facilitate the use of a wide variety of alignment objectives. Our experiments with programmatic constraints such as keyword and length constraints (studied widely in the pre-LLM era) and abstract objectives such as harmlessness and helpfulness (proposed in the post-LLM era) show that we can DeAL with fine-grained trade-offs, improve adherence to alignment objectives, and address residual gaps in LLMs. Lastly, while DeAL can be effectively paired with RLHF and prompting techniques, its generality makes decoding slower, an optimization we leave for future work.

Code Representation Learning At Scale

Recent studies have shown that code language models at scale demonstrate significant performance gains on downstream tasks, i.e., code generation. However, most of the existing works on code representation learning train models at a hundred million parameter scale using very limited pretraining corpora. In this work, we fuel code representation learning with a vast amount of code data via a two-stage pretraining scheme. We first train the encoders via a mix that leverages both randomness in masking language modeling and the structure aspect of programming language. We then enhance the representations via contrastive learning with hard negative and hard positive constructed in an unsupervised manner. We establish an off-the-shelf encoder model that persistently outperforms the existing models on a wide variety of downstream tasks by large margins. To comprehend the factors contributing to successful code representation learning, we conduct detailed ablations and share our findings on (i) a customized and effective token-level denoising scheme for source code; (ii) the importance of hard negatives and hard positives; (iii) how the proposed bimodal contrastive learning boost the cross-lingual semantic search performance; and (iv) how the pretraining schemes decide the downstream task performance scales with the model size.

Pachinko: Patching Interpretable QA Models through Natural Language Feedback

Eliciting feedback from end users of NLP models can be beneficial for improving models. However, how should we present model responses to users so they are most amenable to be corrected from user feedback? Further, what properties do users value to understand and trust responses? We answer these questions by analyzing the effect of rationales generated by QA models to support their answers. We specifically consider decomposed question-answering models that first extract an intermediate rationale based on a context and a question and then use solely this rationale to answer the question. A rationale outlines the approach followed by the model to answer the question. Our work considers various formats of these rationales that vary according to well-defined properties of interest. We sample these rationales from large language models using few-shot prompting for two reading comprehension datasets, and then perform two user studies. In the first one, we present users with incorrect answers and corresponding rationales of various formats and ask them to provide natural language feedback to revise the rationale. We then measure the effectiveness of this feedback in patching these rationales through in-context learning. The second study evaluates how well different rationale formats enable users to understand and trust model answers, when they are correct. We find that rationale formats significantly affect how easy it is (1) for users to give feedback for rationales, and (2) for models to subsequently execute this feedback. In addition to influencing critiquablity, certain formats significantly enhance user reported understanding and trust of model outputs.

Deceiving Semantic Shortcuts on Reasoning Chains: How Far Can Models Go without Hallucination?

Despite the recent advancement in large language models (LLMs) and their high performances across numerous benchmarks, recent research has unveiled that LLMs suffer from hallucinations and unfaithful reasoning. This work studies a specific type of hallucination induced by semantic associations. Specifically, we investigate to what extent LLMs take shortcuts from certain keyword/entity biases in the prompt instead of following the correct reasoning path. To quantify this phenomenon, we propose a novel probing method and benchmark called EureQA. We start from questions that LLMs will answer correctly with utmost certainty, and mask the important entity with evidence sentence recursively, asking models to find masked entities according to a chain of evidence before answering the question. During the construction of the evidence, we purposefully replace semantic clues (entities) that may lead to the correct answer with distractor clues (evidence) that will not directly lead to the correct answer but require a chain-like reasoning process. We evaluate if models can follow the correct reasoning chain instead of short-cutting through distractor clues. We find that existing LLMs lack the necessary capabilities to follow correct reasoning paths and resist the attempt of greedy shortcuts. We show that the distractor semantic associations often lead to model hallucination, which is strong evidence that questions the validity of current LLM reasoning.

Understanding Calibration for Multilingual Question Answering Models

Multilingual pre-trained language models are incredibly effective at Question Answering (QA), a core task in Natural Language Understanding, achieving high accuracies on several multilingual benchmarks. However, little is known about how well they are calibrated. In this paper, we study the calibration properties of several pre-trained multilingual large language models (LLMs) on a variety of question-answering tasks. We perform extensive experiments, spanning both extractive and generative QA model designs and diverse languages, spanning both high-resource and low-resource ones. We study different dimensions of calibration in in-distribution, out-of-distribution, and cross-lingual transfer settings, and investigate strategies to improve it, including post-hoc methods and regularized fine-tuning. We demonstrate automatically translated data augmentation as a highly effective technique to improve model calibration. We also conduct a number of ablation experiments to study the effect of model size on calibration and how multilingual models compare with their monolingual counterparts for diverse tasks and languages.

Multi-Set Inoculation: Assessing Model Robustness Across Multiple Challenge Sets

Language models, given their black-box nature, often exhibit sensitivity to input perturbations, leading to trust issues due to hallucinations. To bolster trust, it's essential to understand these models' failure modes and devise strategies to enhance their performance. In this study, we propose a framework to study the effect of input perturbations on language models of different scales, from pre-trained models to large language models (LLMs). We use fine-tuning to train a robust model to perturbations, and we investigate whether exposure to one perturbation improves or degrades the model's performance on other perturbations. To address multi-perturbation robustness, we suggest three distinct training strategies. We also extend the framework to LLMs via a chain of thought(COT) prompting with exemplars. We instantiate our framework for the Tabular-NLI task and show that the proposed strategies train the model robust to different perturbations without losing accuracy on a given dataset.