Thin Van


Fixing paper assignments

  1. Please select all papers that belong to the same person.
  2. Indicate below which author they should be assigned to.
Provide a valid ORCID iD here. This will be used to match future papers to this author.
Provide the name of the school or the university where the author has received or will receive their highest degree (e.g., Ph.D. institution for researchers, or current affiliation for students). This will be used to form the new author page ID, if needed.

TODO: "submit" and "cancel" buttons here


2025

pdf bib
LLMSR@XLLM25: Integrating Reasoning Prompt Strategies with Structural Prompt Formats for Enhanced Logical Inference
Le Tai | Thin Van
Proceedings of the 1st Joint Workshop on Large Language Models and Structure Modeling (XLLM 2025)

This paper illustrates our NBTailee team sys- tem approach in XLLM-ACL 2025 Task-III: LLM for Structural Reasoning (LLM-SR), aim- ing to solve both Task: Question parsing and CoT parsing. The process of extracting state- ments and evidence is similar to Discourse Pars- ing. Correct extraction of statements or evi- dence from the COT is crucial at the outset. Next, the pairwise relationship between a spe- cific statement and its corresponding evidence is assessed (a statement should be followed by its related evidence from the CoT). Both seman- tic and lexical similarity are used to evaluate the accuracy of statements and evidence predic- tions. Finally, once a statement-evidence pair is correctly extracted, it is evaluated to deter- mine whether the evidence can logically deduce the statement. To tackle Question Parsing and CoT Parsing, we implement and investigate var- ious solutions, including (1) applying different structural prompt formats like JSON, Mark- down, or XML. (2) utilising various prompt techniques: Few-shot, Chain of thought, and Multi-hop prompting. (3) Taking advantage of Natural Language Inference (NLI) model for the Statement Verification step. Our best of- ficial result is a 243.047 mean score for test phases A and B, and finally, we rank 7th on the final leaderboard.
Search
Co-authors
Venues
Fix data