Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00205v1
• Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:53:53 GMT
• Title: Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models
• Authors: Ben Zhou, Hongming Zhang, Sihao Chen, Dian Yu, Hongwei Wang, Baolin Peng, Dan Roth, Dong Yu,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
• Score: 98.90677711523645
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Conceptual reasoning, the ability to reason in abstract and high-level perspectives, is key to generalization in human cognition. However, limited study has been done on large language models' capability to perform conceptual reasoning. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions and generate solutions in a verifiable symbolic space. Using this framework as an analytical tool, we show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks compared to direct inference methods. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making. We propose two techniques to add trustworthy induction signals by generating familiar questions with similar underlying reasoning paths and asking models to perform self-refinement. Experiments show that our proposed techniques improve models' conceptual reasoning performance by 8% to 11%, achieving a more robust reasoning system that relies less on inductive biases.

Related papers

• Reasoning Elicitation in Language Models via Counterfactual Feedback [17.908819732623716]
  We derive novel metrics that balance accuracy in factual and counterfactual questions. We propose several fine-tuning approaches that aim to elicit better reasoning mechanisms. We evaluate the performance of the fine-tuned language models in a variety of realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T15:33:30Z)
• Boosting the Power of Small Multimodal Reasoning Models to Match Larger Models with Self-Consistency Training [49.3242278912771]
  Multimodal reasoning is a challenging task that requires models to reason across multiple modalities to answer questions. Existing approaches have made progress by incorporating language and visual modalities into a two-stage reasoning framework. We propose MC-CoT, a self-consistency training strategy that generates multiple rationales and answers, subsequently selecting the most accurate through a voting process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T17:09:48Z)
• Contrastive Chain-of-Thought Prompting [74.10511560147293]
  We propose contrastive chain of thought to enhance language model reasoning. Compared to the conventional chain of thought, our approach provides both valid and invalid reasoning demonstrations. Our experiments on reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that contrastive chain of thought can serve as a general enhancement of chain-of-thought prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:54:01Z)
• UNcommonsense Reasoning: Abductive Reasoning about Uncommon Situations [62.71847873326847]
  We investigate the ability to model unusual, unexpected, and unlikely situations. Given a piece of context with an unexpected outcome, this task requires reasoning abductively to generate an explanation. We release a new English language corpus called UNcommonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:00:55Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• Minding Language Models' (Lack of) Theory of Mind: A Plug-and-Play Multi-Character Belief Tracker [72.09076317574238]
  ToM is a plug-and-play approach to investigate the belief states of characters in reading comprehension. We show that ToM enhances off-the-shelf neural network theory mind in a zero-order setting while showing robust out-of-distribution performance compared to supervised baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T17:24:35Z)
• Language Models are Bounded Pragmatic Speakers: Understanding RLHF from a Bayesian Cognitive Modeling Perspective [2.8282906214258805]
  This paper formulates a probabilistic cognitive model called the bounded pragmatic speaker. We demonstrate that large language models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback embody a model of thought that resembles a fast-and-slow model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-28T16:04:48Z)
• Social Commonsense Reasoning with Multi-Head Knowledge Attention [24.70946979449572]
  Social Commonsense Reasoning requires understanding of text, knowledge about social events and their pragmatic implications, as well as commonsense reasoning skills. We propose a novel multi-head knowledge attention model that encodes semi-structured commonsense inference rules and learns to incorporate them in a transformer-based reasoning cell.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T10:24:40Z)
• CausaLM: Causal Model Explanation Through Counterfactual Language Models [33.29636213961804]
  CausaLM is a framework for producing causal model explanations using counterfactual language representation models. We show that language representation models such as BERT can effectively learn a counterfactual representation for a given concept of interest. A byproduct of our method is a language representation model that is unaffected by the tested concept.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-27T15:06:35Z)

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.