An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Learning in Large Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

Lexicon-Level Contrastive Visual-Grounding Improves Language Modeling

Today's most accurate language models are trained on orders of magnitude more language data than human language learners receive - but with no supervision from other sensory modalities that play a crucial role in human learning. Can we make LMs' representations and predictions more accurate (and more human-like) with more ecologically plausible supervision? This paper describes LexiContrastive Grounding (LCG), a grounded language learning procedure that leverages visual supervision to improve textual representations. LexiContrastive Grounding combines a next token prediction strategy with a contrastive visual grounding objective, focusing on early-layer representations that encode lexical information. Across multiple word-learning and sentence-understanding benchmarks, LexiContrastive Grounding not only outperforms standard language-only models in learning efficiency, but also improves upon vision-and-language learning procedures including CLIP, GIT, Flamingo, and Vokenization. Moreover, LexiContrastive Grounding improves perplexity by around 5% on multiple language modeling tasks. This work underscores the potential of incorporating visual grounding into language models, aligning more closely with the multimodal nature of human language acquisition.

Bayesian Preference Elicitation with Language Models

Aligning AI systems to users' interests requires understanding and incorporating humans' complex values and preferences. Recently, language models (LMs) have been used to gather information about the preferences of human users. This preference data can be used to fine-tune or guide other LMs and/or AI systems. However, LMs have been shown to struggle with crucial aspects of preference learning: quantifying uncertainty, modeling human mental states, and asking informative questions. These challenges have been addressed in other areas of machine learning, such as Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design (BOED), which focus on designing informative queries within a well-defined feature space. But these methods, in turn, are difficult to scale and apply to real-world problems where simply identifying the relevant features can be difficult. We introduce OPEN (Optimal Preference Elicitation with Natural language) a framework that uses BOED to guide the choice of informative questions and an LM to extract features and translate abstract BOED queries into natural language questions. By combining the flexibility of LMs with the rigor of BOED, OPEN can optimize the informativity of queries while remaining adaptable to real-world domains. In user studies, we find that OPEN outperforms existing LM- and BOED-based methods for preference elicitation.

Learning with Language-Guided State Abstractions

We describe a framework for using natural language to design state abstractions for imitation learning. Generalizable policy learning in high-dimensional observation spaces is facilitated by well-designed state representations, which can surface important features of an environment and hide irrelevant ones. These state representations are typically manually specified, or derived from other labor-intensive labeling procedures. Our method, LGA (language-guided abstraction), uses a combination of natural language supervision and background knowledge from language models (LMs) to automatically build state representations tailored to unseen tasks. In LGA, a user first provides a (possibly incomplete) description of a target task in natural language; next, a pre-trained LM translates this task description into a state abstraction function that masks out irrelevant features; finally, an imitation policy is trained using a small number of demonstrations and LGA-generated abstract states. Experiments on simulated robotic tasks show that LGA yields state abstractions similar to those designed by humans, but in a fraction of the time, and that these abstractions improve generalization and robustness in the presence of spurious correlations and ambiguous specifications. We illustrate the utility of the learned abstractions on mobile manipulation tasks with a Spot robot.

Loose LIPS Sink Ships: Asking Questions in Battleship with Language-Informed Program Sampling

Questions combine our mastery of language with our remarkable facility for reasoning about uncertainty. How do people navigate vast hypothesis spaces to pose informative questions given limited cognitive resources? We study these tradeoffs in a classic grounded question-asking task based on the board game Battleship. Our language-informed program sampling (LIPS) model uses large language models (LLMs) to generate natural language questions, translate them into symbolic programs, and evaluate their expected information gain. We find that with a surprisingly modest resource budget, this simple Monte Carlo optimization strategy yields informative questions that mirror human performance across varied Battleship board scenarios. In contrast, LLM-only baselines struggle to ground questions in the board state; notably, GPT-4V provides no improvement over non-visual baselines. Our results illustrate how Bayesian models of question-asking can leverage the statistics of language to capture human priors, while highlighting some shortcomings of pure LLMs as grounded reasoners.

In-Context Language Learning: Architectures and Algorithms

Large-scale neural language models exhibit a remarkable capacity for in-context learning (ICL): they can infer novel functions from datasets provided as input. Most of our current understanding of when and how ICL arises comes from LMs trained on extremely simple learning problems like linear regression and associative recall. There remains a significant gap between these model problems and the "real" ICL exhibited by LMs trained on large text corpora, which involves not just retrieval and function approximation but free-form generation of language and other structured outputs. In this paper, we study ICL through the lens of a new family of model problems we term in context language learning (ICLL). In ICLL, LMs are presented with a set of strings from a formal language, and must generate additional strings from the same language. We focus on in-context learning of regular languages generated by random finite automata. We evaluate a diverse set of neural sequence models (including several RNNs, Transformers, and state-space model variants) on regular ICLL tasks, aiming to answer three questions: (1) Which model classes are empirically capable of ICLL? (2) What algorithmic solutions do successful models implement to perform ICLL? (3) What architectural changes can improve ICLL in less performant models? We first show that Transformers significantly outperform neural sequence models with recurrent or convolutional representations on ICLL tasks. Next, we provide evidence that their ability to do so relies on specialized "n-gram heads" (higher-order variants of induction heads) that compute input-conditional next-token distributions. Finally, we show that hard-wiring these heads into neural models improves performance not just on ICLL, but natural language modeling -- improving the perplexity of 340M-parameter models by up to 1.14 points (6.7%) on the SlimPajama dataset.

Deductive Closure Training of Language Models for Coherence, Accuracy, and Updatability

While language models (LMs) can sometimes generate factually correct text and estimate truth values of individual claims, these generally do not reflect a globally coherent, manipulable model of the world. As a consequence, current LMs also generate incorrect or nonsensical content, and are difficult to edit and bring up to date. We present a method called Deductive Closure Training (DCT) that uses LMs themselves to identify implications of (and contradictions within) the text that they generate, yielding an efficient self-supervised procedure for improving LM factuality. Given a collection of seed documents, DCT prompts LMs to generate additional text implied by these documents, reason globally about the correctness of this generated text, and finally fine-tune on text inferred to be correct. Given seed documents from a trusted source, DCT provides a tool for supervised model updating; if seed documents are sampled from the LM itself, DCT enables fully unsupervised fine-tuning for improved coherence and accuracy. Across the CREAK, MQUaKE, and Reversal Curse datasets, supervised DCT improves LM fact verification and text generation accuracy by 3-26%; on CREAK fully unsupervised DCT improves verification accuracy by 12%. These results show that LMs' reasoning capabilities during inference can be leveraged during training to improve their reliability.

Learning adaptive planning representations with natural language guidance

Effective planning in the real world requires not only world knowledge, but the ability to leverage that knowledge to build the right representation of the task at hand. Decades of hierarchical planning techniques have used domain-specific temporal action abstractions to support efficient and accurate planning, almost always relying on human priors and domain knowledge to decompose hard tasks into smaller subproblems appropriate for a goal or set of goals. This paper describes Ada (Action Domain Acquisition), a framework for automatically constructing task-specific planning representations using task-general background knowledge from language models (LMs). Starting with a general-purpose hierarchical planner and a low-level goal-conditioned policy, Ada interactively learns a library of planner-compatible high-level action abstractions and low-level controllers adapted to a particular domain of planning tasks. On two language-guided interactive planning benchmarks (Mini Minecraft and ALFRED Household Tasks), Ada strongly outperforms other approaches that use LMs for sequential decision-making, offering more accurate plans and better generalization to complex tasks.

Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development

One of the motivations for explainable AI is to allow humans to make better and more informed decisions regarding the use and deployment of AI models. But careful evaluations are needed to assess whether this expectation has been fulfilled. Current evaluations mainly focus on algorithmic properties of explanations, and those that involve human subjects often employ subjective questions to test human's perception of explanation usefulness, without being grounded in objective metrics and measurements. In this work, we evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. We conduct a mixed-methods user study involving image data to evaluate saliency maps generated by SmoothGrad, GradCAM, and an oracle explanation on two tasks: model selection and counterfactual simulation. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on these tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps, even the synthetic oracle explanation designed to be simple to understand and highly indicative of the answer. Nonetheless, explanations did help users more accurately describe the models. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.