Enhancing the reasoning capabilities of language models (LMs) remains a key challenge, especially for tasks that require complex, multi-step decision-making where existing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) approaches struggle with consistency and verification. In this paper, we propose a novel reasoning framework, referred to as Structure-aware Planning with an Accurate World Model (SWAP), that integrates structured knowledge representation with learned planning. Unlike prior methods that rely purely on natural language reasoning, SWAP leverages entailment graphs to encode structured dependencies and enable symbolic verification of intermediate steps. To systematically construct and update the graph, SWAP employs a policy model to propose candidate expansions and a world model to predict structural updates. To improve accuracy, the world model generates multiple alternative updates, and a discriminator re-ranks them based on plausibility. To encourage diverse exploration, we introduce Diversity-based Modelling (DM), which samples candidates from the remaining probability mass after removing previously sampled candidates from the original policy distribution. Additionally, SWAP improves the discrimination accuracy through Contrastive Ranking (CR), which directly compares candidates within prompts and incorporates meta-knowledge to improve ranking quality. We evaluate SWAP across diverse reasoning-intensive benchmarks including math reasoning, logical reasoning, and coding tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SWAP significantly improves upon the base models and consistently outperforms existing reasoning methods.

Reasoning abilities of LLMs have been a key focus in recent years. One challenging reasoning domain with interesting nuances is legal reasoning, which requires careful application of rules, and precedents while balancing deductive and analogical reasoning, and conflicts between rules. Although there have been a few works on using LLMs for legal reasoning, their focus has been on overall accuracy. In this paper, we dig deeper to do a step-by-step analysis and figure out where they commit errors. We use the college-level Multiple Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) task from the Civil Procedure dataset and propose a new error taxonomy derived from initial manual analysis of reasoning chains with respect to several LLMs, including two objective measures: soundness and correctness scores. We then develop an LLM-based automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs. The computation of soundness and correctness on the dataset using the auto-evaluator framework reveals several interesting insights. Furthermore, we show that incorporating the error taxonomy as feedback in popular prompting techniques marginally increases LLM performance. Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.

Hallucination in large language models (LLMs) can be detected by assessing the uncertainty of model outputs, typically measured using entropy. Semantic entropy (SE) enhances traditional entropy estimation by quantifying uncertainty at the semantic cluster level. However, as modern LLMs generate longer one-sentence responses, SE becomes less effective because it overlooks two crucial factors: intra-cluster similarity (the spread within a cluster) and inter-cluster similarity (the distance between clusters). To address this limitation, we propose a simple black-box uncertainty quantification method inspired by nearest neighbor estimates of entropy. Our approach can also be easily extended to white-box settings by incorporating token probabilities. Additionally, we provide theoretical results showing that our method generalizes semantic entropy. Extensive empirical results demonstrate its effectiveness compared to semantic entropy across two recent LLMs (Phi3 and Llama3) and three common text generation tasks: question answering, text summarization, and machine translation. Our code is available at [https://github.com/BigML-CS-UCLA/SNNE](https://github.com/BigML-CS-UCLA/SNNE).

Natural language processing evaluation has made significant progress, largely driven by the proliferation of powerful large language mod-els (LLMs). New evaluation benchmarks are of increasing priority as the reasoning capabilities of LLMs are expanding at a rapid pace. In particular, while multi-document (MD) reasoning is an area of extreme relevance given LLM capabilities in handling longer-context inputs, few benchmarks exist to rigorously examine model behavior in this setting. Moreover, the multi-document setting is historically challenging for benchmark creation due to the expensive cost of annotating long inputs. In this work, we introduce MDBench, a new dataset for evaluating LLMs on the task of multi-document reasoning. Notably, MDBench is created through a novel synthetic generation process, allowing us to controllably and efficiently generate challenging document sets and the corresponding question-answer (QA) examples. Our novel technique operates on condensed structured seed knowledge, modifying it through LLM-assisted edits to induce MD-specific reasoning challenges. We then convert this structured knowledge into a natural text surface form, generating a document set and corresponding QA example. We analyze the behavior of popular LLMs and prompting techniques, finding that MDBench poses significant challenges for all methods, even with relatively short document sets. We also see our knowledge-guided generation technique (1) allows us to readily perform targeted analysis of MD-specific reasoning capabilities and (2) can be adapted quickly to account for new challenges and future modeling improvements.

Advancements in logical reasoning, utilizing LLMs to convert natural language into logical symbolism, combined with the use of external theorem provers, have repositioned the symbolic approach as a central point of interest. The main challenge within this paradigm lies in the LLMs’ capability to accurately translate natural language (NL) statements into first-order-logic (FOL) expressions. Although LLMs have shown notable success, there remains a gap in understanding the limitations and challenges they encounter in NL-FOL translation. This is primarily due to the absence of datasets and evaluation test beds at the required fine-grained level. We present MALLS, a dataset of 28K diverse and verified sentence-level NL-FOL pairs collected from GPT4. We utilize a combined strategy of FOL rule parsing, human annotation, and automatic filtering to ensure quality. We also present LogicLLaMA, a LLaMA2-7B/13B fine-tuned on MALLS for NL-FOL translation, which can be used standalone or to correct previously generated rules by GPT3.5 after being further fine-tuned via a novel reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) framework. We benchmark a wide range of LLMs on MALLS and previous datasets, highlighting weaknesses in them in NL-FOL translation and demonstrating the advantages of MALLS. We also show that LogicLLaMA achieves GPT4-level performance and can generalize to other datasets. Project repo is available at https://github.com/gblackout/LogicLLaMA

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, they are not without their flaws and inaccuracies. Recent studies have introduced various methods to mitigate these limitations. Temporal reasoning (TR), in particular, presents a significant challenge for LLMs due to its reliance on diverse temporal concepts and intricate temporal logic. In this paper, we propose TG-LLM, a novel framework towards language-based TR. Instead of reasoning over the original context, we adopt a latent representation, temporal graph (TG) that enhances the learning of TR. A synthetic dataset (TGQA), which is fully controllable and requires minimal supervision, is constructed for fine-tuning LLMs on this text-to-TG translation task. We confirmed in experiments that the capability of TG translation learned on our dataset can be transferred to other TR tasks and benchmarks. On top of that, we teach LLM to perform deliberate reasoning over the TGs via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) bootstrapping and graph data augmentation. We observed that those strategies, which maintain a balance between usefulness and diversity, bring more reliable CoTs and final results than the vanilla CoT distillation.

In this paper, we examine how large language models (LLMs) solve multi-step problems under a language agent framework with three components: a generator, a discriminator, and a planning method. We investigate the practical utility of two advanced planning methods, iterative correction and tree search. We present a comprehensive analysis of how discrimination accuracy affects the overall performance of agents when using these two methods or a simpler method, re-ranking. Experiments on two tasks, text-to-SQL parsing and mathematical reasoning, show that: (1) advanced planning methods demand discriminators with at least 90% accuracy to achieve significant improvements over re-ranking; (2) current LLMs’ discrimination abilities have not met the needs of advanced planning methods to achieve such improvements; (3) with LLM-based discriminators, advanced planning methods may not adequately balance accuracy and efficiency. For example, compared to the other two methods, tree search is at least 10–20 times slower but leads to negligible performance gains, which hinders its real-world applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown superior capability to solve reasoning problems with programs. While being a promising direction, most of such frameworks are trained and evaluated in settings with a prior knowledge of task requirements. However, as LLMs become more capable, it is necessary to assess their reasoning abilities in more realistic scenarios where many real-world problems are open-ended with ambiguous scope, and often require multiple formalisms to solve. To investigate this, we introduce the task of reasoning in the wild, where an LLM is tasked to solve a reasoning problem of unknown type by identifying the sub-problems and their corresponding formalisms, and writing a program to solve each sub-problem, guided by a tactic. We create a large tactic-guided trajectory dataset containing detailed solutions to a diverse set of reasoning problems, ranging from well-defined single-form reasoning (e.g., math, logic), to ambiguous and hybrid ones (e.g., commonsense, combined math and logic). This allows us to test various aspects of LLMs reasoning at the fine-grained level such as the selection and execution of tactics, and the tendency to take undesired shortcuts. In experiments, we highlight that existing LLMs fail significantly on problems with ambiguous and mixed scope, revealing critical limitations and overfitting issues (e.g. accuracy on GSM8K drops by at least 50%). We further show the potential of finetuning a local LLM on the tactic-guided trajectories in achieving better performance. Project repo is available at https://github.com/gblackout/Reason-in-the-Wild.

Despite recent progress in text-to-SQL parsing, current semantic parsers are still not accurate enough for practical use. In this paper, we investigate how to build automatic text-to-SQL error correction models. Noticing that token-level edits are out of context and sometimes ambiguous, we propose building clause-level edit models instead. Besides, while most language models of code are not specifically pre-trained for SQL, they know common data structures and their operations in programming languages such as Python. Thus, we propose a novel representation for SQL queries and their edits that adheres more closely to the pre-training corpora of language models of code. Our error correction model improves the exact set match accuracy of different parsers by 2.4-6.5 and obtains up to 4.3 point absolute improvement over two strong baselines.