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.

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

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.

Single document news summarization has seen substantial progress on faithfulness in recent years, driven by research on the evaluation of factual consistency, or hallucinations. We ask whether these advances carry over to other text summarization domains. We propose a new evaluation benchmark on topic-focused dialogue summarization, generated by LLMs of varying sizes. We provide binary sentence- level human annotations of the factual consistency of these summaries along with detailed explanations of factually inconsistent sentences. Our analysis shows that existing LLMs hallucinate significant amounts of factual errors in the dialogue domain, regardless of the model’s size. On the other hand, when LLMs, including GPT-4, serve as binary factual evaluators, they perform poorly and can be outperformed by prevailing state-of-the-art specialized factuality evaluation metrics. Finally, we conducted an analysis of hallucination types with a curated error taxonomy. We find that there are diverse errors and error distributions in model-generated summaries and that non-LLM based metrics can capture all error types better than LLM-based evaluators.