Procedural mistake detection (PMD) is a challenging problem of classifying whether a human user (observed through egocentric video) has successfully executed a task (specified by a procedural text). Despite significant recent efforts, machine performance in the wild remains nonviable, and the reasoning processes underlying this performance are opaque. As such, we extend PMD to require generating visual self-dialog rationales to inform decisions. Given the impressive, mature image understanding capabilities observed in recent vision-and-language models (VLMs), we curate a suitable benchmark dataset for PMD based on individual frames. As our reformulation enables unprecedented transparency, we leverage a natural language inference (NLI) model to formulate two automated metrics for the coherence of generated rationales. We establish baselines for this reframed task, showing that VLMs struggle off-the-shelf, but with some trade-offs, their accuracy, coherence, and efficiency can be improved by incorporating these metrics into common inference and fine-tuning methods. Lastly, our multi-faceted metrics visualize common outcomes, highlighting areas for further improvement.

Most adults can complete a sequence of steps to achieve a certain goal, such as making a sandwich or repairing a bicycle tire. In completing these goal-oriented tasks, or simply tasks in this paper, one must use sequential reasoning to understand the relationship between the sequence of steps and the goal. LLMs have shown impressive capabilities across various natural language understanding tasks. However, prior work has mainlyfocused on logical reasoning tasks (e.g. arithmetic, commonsense QA); how well LLMs can perform on more complex reasoning tasks like sequential reasoning is not clear. In this paper, we address this gap and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of how well LLMs are able to conduct this reasoning for tasks and how they scale w.r.t multiple dimensions(e.g. adaptive prompting strategies, number of in-context examples, varying complexity of the sequential task). Our findings reveal that while Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting can significantly enhance LLMs’ sequential reasoning in certain scenarios, it can also be detrimental in others, whereas Tree of Thoughts (ToT) reasoning is less effective for this type of task. Additionally, we discover that an increase in model size or in-context examples does not consistently lead to improved performance.