CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17438v4
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 04:27:54 GMT
- Title: CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models
- Authors: Yinya Huang, Ruixin Hong, Hongming Zhang, Wei Shao, Zhicheng Yang, Dong Yu, Changshui Zhang, Xiaodan Liang, Linqi Song,
- Abstract summary: We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark.
In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship.
We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
- Score: 109.60793869938534
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: In this study, we delve into the realm of counterfactual reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Our primary objective is to cultivate the counterfactual thought processes within LLMs and rigorously assess these processes for their validity. Specifically, we introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. To effectively evaluate a generation model's counterfactual capabilities, we propose an innovative evaluation metric, the decomposed Self-Evaluation Score (SES) to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs instead of modeling the task as a multiple-choice problem. Analysis shows that the proposed automatic metric aligns well with human preference. Our experimental results show that while LLMs demonstrate a notable capacity for logical counterfactual thinking, there remains a discernible gap between their current abilities and human performance. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Eleanor-H/CLOMO.
Related papers
- Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score.
Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score.
Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z) - LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We? [8.840750655261251]
Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks.
Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-17T08:22:52Z) - A & B == B & A: Triggering Logical Reasoning Failures in Large Language
Models [65.86149763739141]
We introduce LogicAsker, an automatic approach that comprehensively evaluates and improves the logical reasoning abilities of LLMs.
We evaluate LogicAsker on six widely deployed LLMs, including GPT-3, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Bard, Vicuna, and Guanaco.
The results show that test cases from LogicAsker can find logical reasoning failures in different LLMs with a rate of 25% - 94%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z) - InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal
Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence.
Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning.
We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z) - Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation [54.85665903448207]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language.
This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-15T15:12:15Z) - Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality
Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities.
This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z) - Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training.
We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion.
The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.