Extractive summarization plays a pivotal role in natural language processing due to its wide-range applications in summarizing diverse content efficiently, while also being faithful to the original content. Despite significant advancement achieved in extractive summarization by Large Language Models (LLMs), these summaries frequently exhibit incoherence. An important aspect of the coherent summary is its readability for intended users. Although there have been many datasets and benchmarks proposed for creating coherent extractive summaries, none of them currently incorporate user intent to improve coherence in extractive summarization. Motivated by this, we propose a systematically created human-annotated dataset consisting of coherent summaries for five publicly available datasets and natural language user feedback, offering valuable insights into how to improve coherence in extractive summaries. We utilize this dataset for aligning LLMs through supervised fine-tuning with natural language human feedback to enhance the coherence of their generated summaries. Preliminary experiments with Falcon-40B and Llama-2-13B show significant performance improvements (~10% Rouge-L) in terms of producing coherent summaries. We further utilize human feedback to benchmark results over instruction-tuned models such as FLAN-T5 which resulted in several interesting findings.

Solving grid puzzles involves a significant amount of logical reasoning. Hence, it is a good domain to evaluate reasoning capability of a model which can then guide us to improve the reasoning ability of models. However, most existing works evaluate only the final predicted answer of a puzzle, without delving into an in-depth analysis of the LLMs’ reasoning chains (such as where they falter) or providing any finer metrics to evaluate them. Since LLMs may rely on simple heuristics or artifacts to predict the final answer, it is crucial to evaluate the generated reasoning chain beyond overall correctness measures, for accurately evaluating the reasoning abilities of LLMs. To this end, we first develop GridPuzzle, an evaluation dataset comprising of 274 grid-based puzzles with different complexities. Second, we propose a new error taxonomy derived from manual analysis of reasoning chains from LLMs including GPT-4, Claude-3, Gemini, Mistral, and Llama-2. Then, we develop a LLM-based framework for large-scale subjective evaluation (i.e., identifying errors) and an objective metric, PuzzleEval, to evaluate the correctness of reasoning chains. Evaluating reasoning chains from LLMs leads to several interesting findings. We further show that existing prompting methods used for enhancing models’ reasoning abilities do not improve performance on GridPuzzle. This highlights the importance of understanding fine-grained errors and presents a challenge for future research to enhance LLMs’ puzzle-solving abilities by developing methods that address these errors.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to exhibit remarkable performance in natural language understanding tasks, there is a crucial need to measure their ability for human-like multi-step logical reasoning. Existing logical reasoning evaluation benchmarks often focus primarily on simplistic single-step or multi-step reasoning with a limited set of inference rules. Furthermore, the lack of datasets for evaluating non-monotonic reasoning represents a crucial gap since it aligns more closely with human-like reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose Multi-LogiEval, a comprehensive evaluation dataset encompassing multi-step logical reasoning with various inference rules and depths. Multi-LogiEval covers three logic types — propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic consisting of more than 30 inference rules and more than 60 of their combinations with various depths. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct evaluations on a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini-Pro, Orca, and Mistral, employing a zero-shot chain-of-thought. Experimental results show that there is a significant drop in the performance of LLMs as the reasoning steps/depth increases (average accuracy of ~68% at depth-1 to ~43% at depth-5). We further conduct a thorough investigation of reasoning chains generated by LLMs which reveals several important findings. We believe that Multi-LogiEval facilitates future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance across a wide variety of tasks; however, their large size makes their inference slow and computationally expensive. Focusing on this problem, we study instruction tuning LLMs with additional explicit Losses from the Intermediate layers (LITE) and show that it enables these layers to acquire ‘good’ generation ability without affecting the generation ability of the final layer. We then perform ‘dynamic confidence-based early exiting’ at token level from the intermediate layers which improves the computational efficiency of text generation without sacrificing the quality of the generation. We conduct comprehensive experiments by instruction tuning LLaMA-2 models on the Alpaca dataset and evaluate on four different instruction test sets. We show that dynamic early exiting achieves consistent and considerable inference cost improvements (37.86% for 7B and 46.35% for 13B model) while maintaining the generation quality. We further conduct a thorough analysis of the results and dissect the efficiency improvements which reveals several important findings.

We present EDM3, a novel approach for Event Detection (ED) based on decomposing and reformulating ED, and fine-tuning over its atomic subtasks. EDM3 enhances knowledge transfer while mitigating prediction error propagation inherent in pipelined approaches. EDM3 infers dataset-specific knowledge required for the complex primary task from its atomic tasks, making it adaptable to any set of event types. We evaluate EDM3 on multiple ED datasets, achieving state-of-the-art results on RAMS (71.3% vs 65.1% F1), and competitive performance on WikiEvents, MAVEN (∆ = 0.2%), and MLEE (∆ = 1.8%). We present an ablation study over rare event types (<15 instances in training data) in MAVEN, where EDM3 achieves ~90% F1. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, we are the first to analyze ED performance over non-standard event configurations (i.e., multi-word and multi-class triggers). Experimental results show that EDM3 achieves ~90% exact match accuracy on multi-word triggers and ~61% prediction accuracy on multi-class triggers. This work establishes the effectiveness of EDM3 in enhancing performance on a complex information extraction task.

Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really “reason” over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied. However, the crucial skill pertaining to ‘logical reasoning’ has remained underexplored. Existing work investigating this reasoning ability of LLMs has focused only on a couple of inference rules (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) of propositional and first-order logic. Addressing the above limitation, we comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of LLMs on 25 different reasoning patterns spanning over propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logics. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce LogicBench, a natural language question-answering dataset focusing on the use of a single inference rule. We conduct detailed analysis with a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama-2, and Mistral using chain-of-thought prompting. Experimental results show that existing LLMs do not fare well on LogicBench; especially, they struggle with instances involving complex reasoning and negations. Furthermore, they sometimes tend to prioritize parametric knowledge over contextual information and overlook the correct reasoning chain. We believe that our work and findings facilitate future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs.

Recently introduced instruction-paradigm empowers non-expert users to leverage NLP resources by defining a new task in natural language. Instruction-tuned models have significantly outperformed multitask learning models (without instruction); however they are far from state-of-the-art task-specific models. Conventional approaches to improve model performance via creating datasets with large number of task instances or architectural changes in the model may not be feasible for non-expert users. However, they can write alternate instructions to represent an instruction task. Is Instruction-augmentation helpful? We augment a subset of tasks in the expanded version of NATURAL INSTRUCTIONS with additional instructions and find that it significantly improves model performance (up to 35%), especially in the low-data regime. Our results indicate that an additional instruction can be equivalent to ~200 data samples on average across tasks.

Recently Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3, ChatGPT, and FLAN have led to impressive progress in Natural Language Inference (NLI) tasks. However, these models may rely on simple heuristics or artifacts in the evaluation data to achieve their high performance, which suggests that they still suffer from logical inconsistency. To assess the logical consistency of these models, we propose a LogicAttack, a method to attack NLI models using diverse logical forms of premise and hypothesis, providing a more robust evaluation of their performance. Our approach leverages a range of inference rules from propositional logic, such as Modus Tollens and Bidirectional Dilemma, to generate effective adversarial attacks and identify common vulnerabilities across multiple NLI models. We achieve an average ~53% Attack Success Rate (ASR) across multiple logic-based attacks. Moreover, we demonstrate that incorporating generated attack samples into training enhances the logical reasoning ability of the target model and decreases its vulnerability to logic-based attacks. Data and source code are available at https://github.com/msantoshmadhav/LogicAttack.

In recent years, progress in NLU has been driven by benchmarks. These benchmarks are typically collected by crowdsourcing, where annotators write examples based on annotation instructions crafted by dataset creators. In this work, we hypothesize that annotators pick up on patterns in the crowdsourcing instructions, which bias them to write many similar examples that are then over-represented in the collected data. We study this form of bias, termed instruction bias, in 14 recent NLU benchmarks, showing that instruction examples often exhibit concrete patterns, which are propagated by crowdworkers to the collected data. This extends previous work (Geva et al., 2019) and raises a new concern of whether we are modeling the dataset creator’s instructions, rather than the task. Through a series of experiments, we show that, indeed, instruction bias can lead to overestimation of model performance, and that models struggle to generalize beyond biases originating in the crowdsourcing instructions. We further analyze the influence of instruction bias in terms of pattern frequency and model size, and derive concrete recommendations for creating future NLU benchmarks.

Despite the success of large pre-trained language models (LMs) such as Codex, they show below-par performance on the larger and more complicated programming related questions. We show that LMs benefit from the summarized version of complicated questions. Our findings show that superfluous information often present in problem description such as human characters, background stories, and names (which are included to help humans in understanding a task) does not help models in understanding a task. To this extent, we create a meta-dataset from the frequently used APPS dataset and the newly created CodeContests dataset for the program synthesis task. Our meta-dataset consists of human and synthesized summaries of the long and complicated programming questions. Experimental results on Codex show that our proposed approach outperforms baseline by 8.13% on the APPS dataset and 11.88% on the CodeContests dataset on an average in terms of strict accuracy. Our analysis shows that summaries significantly improve performance for introductory (9.86%) and interview (11.48%) related programming questions. However, it shows improvement by a small margin ( 2%) for competitive programming questions, implying the scope for future research direction.

Large Language Models (LMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on many Natural Language Processing (NLP) benchmarks. With the growing number of new benchmarks, we build bigger and more complex LMs. However, building new LMs may not be an ideal option owing to the cost, time and environmental impact associated with it. We explore an alternative route: can we modify data by expressing it in terms of the model’s strengths, so that a question becomes easier for models to answer? We investigate if humans can decompose a hard question into a set of simpler questions that are relatively easier for models to solve. We analyze a range of datasets involving various forms of reasoning and find that it is indeed possible to significantly improve model performance (24% for GPT3 and 29% for RoBERTa-SQuAD along with a symbolic calculator) via decomposition. Our approach provides a viable option to involve people in NLP research in a meaningful way. Our findings indicate that Human-in-the-loop Question Decomposition (HQD) can potentially provide an alternate path to building large LMs.

How well can NLP models generalize to a variety of unseen tasks when provided with task instructions? To address this question, we first introduce Super-NaturalInstructions, a benchmark of 1,616 diverse NLP tasks and their expert-written instructions. Our collection covers 76 distinct task types, including but not limited to classification, extraction, infilling, sequence tagging, text rewriting, and text composition. This large and diverse collection of tasks enables rigorous benchmarking of cross-task generalization under instructions—training models to follow instructions on a subset of tasks and evaluating them on the remaining unseen ones.Furthermore, we build Tk-Instruct, a transformer model trained to follow a variety of in-context instructions (plain language task definitions or k-shot examples). Our experiments show that Tk-Instruct outperforms existing instruction-following models such as InstructGPT by over 9% on our benchmark despite being an order of magnitude smaller. We further analyze generalization as a function of various scaling parameters, such as the number of observed tasks, the number of instances per task, and model sizes. We hope our dataset and model facilitate future progress towards more general-purpose NLP models.

Single-task models have proven pivotal in solving specific tasks; however, they have limitations in real-world applications where multi-tasking is necessary and domain shifts are exhibited. Recently, instructional prompts have shown significant improvement towards multi-task generalization; however, the effect of instructional prompts and Multi-Task Learning (MTL) has not been systematically studied in the biomedical domain. Motivated by this, this paper explores the impact of instructional prompts for biomedical MTL. We introduce the BoX, a collection of 32 instruction tasks for Biomedical NLP across (X) various categories. Using this meta-dataset, we propose a unified model termed as In-BoXBART, that can jointly learn all tasks of the BoX without any task-specific modules. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to propose a unified model in the biomedical domain and use instructions to achieve generalization across several biomedical tasks. Experimental results indicate that the proposed model: 1) outperforms single-task baseline by ~3% and multi-task (without instruction) baseline by ~18% on an average, and 2) shows ~23% improvement compared to single-task baseline in few-shot learning (i.e., 32 instances per task) on an average. Our analysis indicates that there is significant room for improvement across tasks in the BoX, implying the scope for future research direction.