Translate Meanings, Not Just Words: IdiomKB's Role in Optimizing Idiomatic Translation with Language Models

To translate well, machine translation (MT) systems and general-purposed language models (LMs) need a deep understanding of both source and target languages and cultures. Therefore, idioms, with their non-compositional nature, pose particular challenges for Transformer-based systems, as literal translations often miss the intended meaning. Traditional methods, which replace idioms using existing knowledge bases (KBs), often lack scale and context awareness. Addressing these challenges, our approach prioritizes context awareness and scalability, allowing for offline storage of idioms in a manageable KB size. This ensures efficient serving with smaller models and provides a more comprehensive understanding of idiomatic expressions. We introduce a multilingual idiom KB (IdiomKB) developed using large LMs to address this. This KB facilitates better translation by smaller models, such as BLOOMZ (7.1B), Alpaca (7B), and InstructGPT (6.7B), by retrieving idioms' figurative meanings. We present a novel, GPT-4-powered metric for human-aligned evaluation, demonstrating that IdiomKB considerably boosts model performance. Human evaluations further validate our KB's quality.

Adaptive Chameleon or Stubborn Sloth: Unraveling the Behavior of Large Language Models in Knowledge Clashes

By providing external information to large language models (LLMs), tool augmentation (including retrieval augmentation) has emerged as a promising solution for addressing the limitations of LLMs' static parametric memory. However, how receptive are LLMs to such external evidence, especially when the evidence conflicts with their parametric memory? We present the first comprehensive and controlled investigation into the behavior of LLMs when encountering knowledge conflicts. We propose a systematic framework to elicit high-quality parametric memory from LLMs and construct the corresponding counter-memory, which enables us to conduct a series of controlled experiments. Our investigation reveals seemingly contradicting behaviors of LLMs. On the one hand, different from prior wisdom, we find that LLMs can be highly receptive to external evidence even when that conflicts with their parametric memory, given that the external evidence is coherent and convincing. On the other hand, LLMs also demonstrate a strong confirmation bias when the external evidence contains some information that is consistent with their parametric memory, despite being presented with conflicting evidence at the same time. These results pose important implications that are worth careful consideration for the further development and deployment of tool- and retrieval-augmented LLMs.

Distilling Script Knowledge from Large Language Models for Constrained Language Planning

In everyday life, humans often plan their actions by following step-by-step instructions in the form of goal-oriented scripts. Previous work has exploited language models (LMs) to plan for abstract goals of stereotypical activities (e.g., "make a cake"), but leaves more specific goals with multi-facet constraints understudied (e.g., "make a cake for diabetics"). In this paper, we define the task of constrained language planning for the first time. We propose an overgenerate-then-filter approach to improve large language models (LLMs) on this task, and use it to distill a novel constrained language planning dataset, CoScript, which consists of 55,000 scripts. Empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly improves the constrained language planning ability of LLMs, especially on constraint faithfulness. Furthermore, CoScript is demonstrated to be quite effective in endowing smaller LMs with constrained language planning ability.

Beneath Surface Similarity: Large Language Models Make Reasonable Scientific Analogies after Structure Abduction

Analogical reasoning is essential for human cognition, allowing us to comprehend new concepts by relating them to familiar ones based on common relational structures. Previous work mainly focuses on word analogies, which do not fully represent the analogical reasoning ability of language models (LMs) aligning with humans. This paper first examines analogy prompting for large language models (LLMs) in scientific question-answering tasks. Then we discover that LLMs tend to ignore relational structures when performing word analogies, casting doubt on their utility for evaluating analogical reasoning. For better evaluation aligning with humans, we propose an analogical structure abduction task based on cognitive psychology, which aims to abduct structures between two systems to establish an analogy. Then we create a benchmark of scientific analogical reasoning with structure abduction, SCAR, consisting of 400 scientific analogies across 13 domains for this task. Empirical results reveal that LLMs struggle with this task, but the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) method with background knowledge and explanations can improve their capability.

Say What You Mean! Large Language Models Speak Too Positively about Negative Commonsense Knowledge

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely studied for their ability to store and utilize positive knowledge. However, negative knowledge, such as "lions don't live in the ocean", is also ubiquitous in the world but rarely mentioned explicitly in the text. What do LLMs know about negative knowledge? This work examines the ability of LLMs to negative commonsense knowledge. We design a constrained keywords-to-sentence generation task (CG) and a Boolean question-answering task (QA) to probe LLMs. Our experiments reveal that LLMs frequently fail to generate valid sentences grounded in negative commonsense knowledge, yet they can correctly answer polar yes-or-no questions. We term this phenomenon the belief conflict of LLMs. Our further analysis shows that statistical shortcuts and negation reporting bias from language modeling pre-training cause this conflict.

ANALOGYKB: Unlocking Analogical Reasoning of Language Models with A Million-scale Knowledge Base

Analogical reasoning is a fundamental cognitive ability of humans. However, current language models (LMs) still struggle to achieve human-like performance in analogical reasoning tasks due to a lack of resources for model training. In this work, we address this gap by proposing ANALOGYKB, a million-scale analogy knowledge base (KB) derived from existing knowledge graphs (KGs). ANALOGYKB identifies two types of analogies from the KGs: 1) analogies of the same relations, which can be directly extracted from the KGs, and 2) analogies of analogous relations, which are identified with a selection and filtering pipeline enabled by large LMs (InstructGPT), followed by minor human efforts for data quality control. Evaluations on a series of datasets of two analogical reasoning tasks (analogy recognition and generation) demonstrate that ANALOGYKB successfully enables LMs to achieve much better results than previous state-of-the-art methods.

Harnessing Knowledge and Reasoning for Human-Like Natural Language Generation: A Brief Review

The rapid development and application of natural language generation (NLG) techniques has revolutionized the field of automatic text production. However, these techniques are still limited in their ability to produce human-like text that is truly reasonable and informative. In this paper, we explore the importance of NLG being guided by knowledge, in order to convey human-like reasoning through language generation. We propose ten goals for intelligent NLG systems to pursue, and briefly review the achievement of NLG techniques guided by knowledge and reasoning. We also conclude by envisioning future directions and challenges in the pursuit of these goals.

Converge to the Truth: Factual Error Correction via Iterative Constrained Editing

Given a possibly false claim sentence, how can we automatically correct it with minimal editing? Existing methods either require a large number of pairs of false and corrected claims for supervised training or do not handle well errors spanning over multiple tokens within an utterance. In this paper, we propose VENCE, a novel method for factual error correction (FEC) with minimal edits. VENCE formulates the FEC problem as iterative sampling editing actions with respect to a target density function. We carefully design the target function with predicted truthfulness scores from an offline trained fact verification model. VENCE samples the most probable editing positions based on back-calculated gradients of the truthfulness score concerning input tokens and the editing actions using a distantly-supervised language model (T5). Experiments on a public dataset show that VENCE improves the well-adopted SARI metric by 5.3 (or a relative improvement of 11.8%) over the previous best distantly-supervised methods.

Unsupervised Explanation Generation via Correct Instantiations

While large pre-trained language models (PLM) have shown their great skills at solving discriminative tasks, a significant gap remains when compared with humans for explanation-related tasks. Among them, explaining the reason why a statement is wrong (e.g., against commonsense) is incredibly challenging. The major difficulty is finding the conflict point, where the statement contradicts our real world. This paper proposes Neon, a two-phrase, unsupervised explanation generation framework. Neon first generates corrected instantiations of the statement (phase I), then uses them to prompt large PLMs to find the conflict point and complete the explanation (phase II). We conduct extensive experiments on two standard explanation benchmarks, i.e., ComVE and e-SNLI. According to both automatic and human evaluations, Neon outperforms baselines, even for those with human-annotated instantiations. In addition to explaining a negative prediction, we further demonstrate that Neon remains effective when generalizing to different scenarios.