Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is a technique that guides Large Language Models (LLMs) to decompose complex tasks into multi-step reasoning through intermediate steps in natural language form. Briefly, CoT enables LLMs to think step by step. However, although many Natural Language Understanding (NLU) tasks also require thinking step by step, LLMs perform less well than small-scale Masked Language Models (MLMs). To migrate CoT from LLMs to MLMs, we propose Chain-of-Thought Tuning (CoTT), a two-step reasoning framework based on prompt tuning, to implement step-by-step thinking for MLMs on NLU tasks. From the perspective of CoT, CoTT’s two-step framework enables MLMs to implement task decomposition; CoTT’s prompt tuning allows intermediate steps to be used in natural language form. Thereby, the success of CoT can be extended to NLU tasks through MLMs. To verify the effectiveness of CoTT, we conduct experiments on two NLU tasks: hierarchical classification and relation extraction, and the results show that CoTT outperforms baselines and achieves state-of-the-art performance.

A long-standing difficulty in AI is the introduction of human-like reasoning in machine reading comprehension. Since algorithmic models can already perform as well as humans on simple quality assurance tasks thanks to the development of deep learning techniques, more difficult reasoning datasets have been presented. However, these datasets mainly focus on a single type of reasoning. There are still significant gaps in the studies when compared to the complex reasoning used in daily life. In this work, we introduce a brand-new dataset, named MTR. There are two parts to it: the first combines deductive and inductive reasoning, and the second does the same with inductive and defeasible reasoning. It consists of more than 30k QA instances, inferring relations between characters in short stories. Results show that state-of-the-art neural models do noticeably worse than expected. Our empirical results highlight the gap in the models’ ability to handle sophisticated inference.

Reasoning and knowledge-related skills are considered as two fundamental skills for natural language understanding (NLU) tasks such as machine reading comprehension (MRC) and natural language inference (NLI). However, it is not clear to what extent an NLU task defined on a dataset correlates to a specific NLU skill. On the one hand, evaluating the correlation requires an understanding of the significance of the NLU skill in a dataset. Significance judges whether a dataset includes sufficient material to help the model master this skill. On the other hand, it is also necessary to evaluate the dependence of the task on the NLU skill. Dependence is a measure of how much the task defined on a dataset depends on the skill. In this paper, we propose a systematic method to diagnose the correlations between an NLU dataset and a specific skill, and then take a fundamental reasoning skill, logical reasoning, as an example for analysis. The method adopts a qualitative indicator to indicate the significance while adopting a quantitative indicator to measure the dependence. We perform diagnosis on 8 MRC datasets (including two types) and 3 NLI datasets and acquire intuitively reasonable results. We then perform the analysis to further understand the results and the proposed indicators. Based on the analysis, although the diagnostic method has some limitations, it is still an effective method to perform a basic diagnosis of the correlation between the dataset and logical reasoning skill, which also can be generalized to other NLU skills.

Logical table-to-text generation aims to automatically generate fluent and logically faithful text from tables. The task remains challenging where deep learning models often generated linguistically fluent but logically inconsistent text. The underlying reason may be that deep learning models often capture surface-level spurious correlations rather than the causal relationships between the table x and the sentence y. Specifically, in the training stage, a model can get a low empirical loss without understanding x and use spurious statistical cues instead. In this paper, we propose a de-confounded variational encoder-decoder (DCVED) based on causal intervention, learning the objective p(y|do(x)). Firstly, we propose to use variational inference to estimate the confounders in the latent space and cooperate with the causal intervention based on Pearl’s do-calculus to alleviate the spurious correlations. Secondly, to make the latent confounder meaningful, we propose a back-prediction process to predict the not-used entities but linguistically similar to the exactly selected ones. Finally, since our variational model can generate multiple candidates, we train a table-text selector to find out the best candidate sentence for the given table. An extensive set of experiments show that our model outperforms the baselines and achieves new state-of-the-art performance on two logical table-to-text datasets in terms of logical fidelity.

Recently, language models (LMs) have achieved significant performance on many NLU tasks, which has spurred widespread interest for their possible applications in the scientific and social area. However, LMs have faced much criticism of whether they are truly capable of reasoning in NLU. In this work, we propose a diagnostic method for first-order logic (FOL) reasoning with a new proposed benchmark, LogicNLI. LogicNLI is an NLI-style dataset that effectively disentangles the target FOL reasoning from commonsense inference and can be used to diagnose LMs from four perspectives: accuracy, robustness, generalization, and interpretability. Experiments on BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet, have uncovered the weaknesses of these LMs on FOL reasoning, which motivates future exploration to enhance the reasoning ability.