REVIEW 6 cited by
ProofWriter: Generating Implications, Proofs, and Abductive Statements over Natural Language
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Transformers have been shown to emulate logical deduction over natural language theories (logical rules expressed in natural language), reliably assigning true/false labels to candidate implications. However, their ability to generate implications of a theory has not yet been demonstrated, and methods for reconstructing proofs of answers are imperfect. In this work we show that a generative model, called ProofWriter, can reliably generate both implications of a theory and the natural language proof(s) that support them. In particular, iterating a 1-step implication generator results in proofs that are highly reliable, and represent actual model decisions (rather than post-hoc rationalizations). On the RuleTaker dataset, the accuracy of ProofWriter's proofs exceed previous methods by +9% absolute, and in a way that generalizes to proof depths unseen in training and on out-of-domain problems. We also show that generative techniques can perform a type of abduction with high precision: Given a theory and an unprovable conclusion, identify a missing fact that allows the conclusion to be proved, along with a proof. These results significantly improve the viability of neural methods for systematically reasoning over natural language.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Chain-of-Verification reduces hallucinations in large language models by drafting responses, planning independent verification questions, answering them separately, and generating a final verified output.
-
Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model
RAP turns LLMs into dual world-model and planning agents via MCTS to generate better reasoning paths, outperforming CoT baselines and achieving 33% relative gains over GPT-4 CoT using LLaMA-33B on plan generation.
-
Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback
On GSM8K, outcome-based supervision achieves similar final-answer error rates to process-based with less labeling, but process-based or learned reward models are needed to reach 3.4% reasoning error among correct solutions.
-
Semantic-Aware Logical Reasoning via a Semiotic Framework
LogicAgent uses a semiotic-square-guided approach to enhance logical reasoning in LLMs on the new RepublicQA benchmark and others, reporting average gains of 6.25% and 7.05% respectively.
-
Reasoning is about giving reasons
A transformer can convert reasoning sentences into a task-specific logical form with 95-99% exact match, after which a symbolic solver answers deductive queries.
-
Is Large Language Model Performance on Reasoning Tasks Impacted by Different Ways Questions Are Asked?
LLM accuracy on reasoning tasks differs significantly by question type, with step-by-step reasoning accuracy often uncorrelated to final answer selection.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.