Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Distinguish Before Answer: Generating Contrastive Explanation as Knowledge for Commonsense Question Answering

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

arxiv 2305.08135 v2 pith:I27P55JD submitted 2023-05-14 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords knowledgecontrastiveexplanationsymbolicbetterconcept-centriccpacecsqa
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing knowledge-enhanced methods have achieved remarkable results in certain QA tasks via obtaining diverse knowledge from different knowledge bases. However, limited by the properties of retrieved knowledge, they still have trouble benefiting from both the knowledge relevance and distinguishment simultaneously. To address the challenge, we propose CPACE, a Concept-centric Prompt-bAsed Contrastive Explanation Generation model, which aims to convert obtained symbolic knowledge into a contrastive explanation for better distinguishing the differences among given candidates. Firstly, following previous works, we retrieve different types of symbolic knowledge with a concept-centric knowledge extraction module. After that, we generate corresponding contrastive explanations using acquired symbolic knowledge and explanation prompts as guidance for better modeling the knowledge distinguishment and interpretability. Finally, we regard the generated contrastive explanation as external knowledge for downstream task enhancement. We conduct a series of experiments on three widely-used question-answering datasets: CSQA, QASC, and OBQA. Experimental results demonstrate that with the help of generated contrastive explanation, our CPACE model achieves new SOTA on CSQA (89.8% on the testing set, 0.9% higher than human performance), and gains impressive improvement on QASC and OBQA (4.2% and 3.5%, respectively).

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools