Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generative abilities, but can they judge the quality of their own generations and self-improve?A popular concept, referred to as *self-refinement*, postulates that LLMs can detect and correct the errors in their generations when asked to do so. However, recent empirical evidence points in the opposite direction, suggesting that LLMs often struggle to accurately identify errors when reasoning is involved. To address this, we propose a reasoning with a refinement strategy called *ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust*, which *asks* necessary questions to decide when an LLM should *refine* its output, and uses it to affirm or deny *trust* in its refinement by ranking the refinement and the initial prediction. On two multistep reasoning tasks of mathematical word problems (GSM8K) and question answering (StrategyQA), *ART* achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines, while using a much smaller model as the decision maker. We believe that *ART* with smaller models, making refinement decisions can be a cost-effective alternative to fine-tuning LLMs.

We conduct a thorough investigation into the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing specifically on the Open Pretrained Transformers (OPT) models as a representative of such models. Our study entails finetuning three different sizes of OPT on a carefully curated reasoning corpus, resulting in two sets of finetuned models: OPT-R, finetuned without explanations, and OPT-RE, finetuned with explanations. We then evaluate all models on 57 out-of-domain tasks drawn from the Super-NaturalInstructions benchmark, covering 26 distinct reasoning skills, utilizing three prompting techniques. Through a comprehensive grid of 27 configurations and 6,156 test evaluations, we investigate the dimensions of finetuning, prompting, and scale to understand the role of explanations on different reasoning skills. Our findings reveal that having explanations in the fewshot exemplar has no significant impact on the model’s performance when the model is finetuned, while positively affecting the non-finetuned counterpart. Moreover, we observe a slight yet consistent increase in classification accuracy as we incorporate explanations during prompting and finetuning, respectively. Finally, we offer insights on which reasoning skills benefit the most from incorporating explanations during finetuning and prompting, such as Numerical (+20.4%) and Analogical (+13.9%) reasoning, as well as skills that exhibit negligible or negative effects.

Recent advancements in large language models have enabled them to perform well on complex tasks that require step-by-step reasoning with few-shot learning. However, it is unclear whether these models are applying reasoning skills they have learnt during pre-training , or if they are simply memorizing their training corpus at finer granularity and have learnt to better understand their context. To address this question, we introduce {pasted macro ‘OUR’}model, a benchmark and suite of analyses for evaluating reasoning skills of language models. {pasted macro ‘OUR’}model enables comparing pre-trained and finetuned models on complex tasks that require reasoning skills to solve. Our benchmark provides a test bed to asses any language model on fine-grained reasoning skills, which spans over 20 datasets and covers 10 different reasoning skills. By using {pasted macro ‘OUR’}model we further investigate the role of finetuning. Our extensive empirical analysis shows that language models learn more reasoning skills such as textual entailment, abductive reasoning, and analogical reasoning during the finetuning stage compared to pretraining stage. However, we also find that when language models are finetuned they tend to overfit to the prompt template, which hurts the robustness of models causing generalization problems.

Though remarkable efforts have been made in non-parallel text style transfer, the evaluation system is unsatisfactory. It always evaluates over samples from only one checkpoint of the model and compares three metrics, i.e., transfer accuracy, BLEU score, and PPL score. In this paper, we argue the inappropriateness of both existing evaluation metrics and the evaluation method. Specifically, for evaluation metrics, we make a detailed analysis and comparison from three aspects: style transfer, content preservation, and naturalness; for the evaluation method, we reiterate the fallacy of picking one checkpoint for model comparison. As a result, we establish a robust evaluation method by examining the trade-off between style transfer and naturalness, and between content preservation and naturalness. Notably, we elaborate the human evaluation and automatically identify the inaccurate measurement of content preservation computed by the BLEU score. To overcome this issue, we propose a graph-based method to extract attribute content and attribute-independent content from input sentences in the YELP dataset and IMDB dataset. With the modified datasets, we design a new evaluation metric called “attribute hit” and propose an efficient regularization to leverage the attribute-dependent content and attribute-independent content as guiding signals. Experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed strategy.