In this paper, we propose a novel, automatic tree-based evaluation metric for LLM-generated step-by-step assembly instructions, that more accurately reflects spatiotemporal aspects of construction than traditional metrics such as BLEU and BERT similarity scores. We apply our proposed metric to the domain of sewing instructions, and show that our metric better correlates with manually-annotated error counts, demonstrating our metric’s superiority for evaluating the spatiotemporal soundness of sewing instructions. Further experiments show that our metric is more robust than traditional approaches against artificially-constructed counterfactual examples that are specifically constructed to confound metrics that rely on textual similarity.

Although the power of LLM tool-use agents has ignited a flurry of recent research in this area, the curation of tool-use training data remains an open problem\textemdashespecially for online RL training. Existing approaches to synthetic tool-use data generation tend to be non-interactive and/or non-compositional. We introduce RandomWorld, a pipeline for the procedural generation of interactive tools and compositional tool-use data. We show that models tuned via SFT and RL on synthetic RandomWorld data improve on a range of tool-use benchmarks, and set the new SoTA for two metrics on the NESTFUL dataset. Further experiments show that downstream performance scales with the amount of RandomWorld-generated training data, opening up the possibility of further improvement through the use of entirely synthetic data.

Interaction between learner and feedback-giver has come into focus recently for post-training of Large Language Models (LLMs), through the use of reward models that judge the appropriateness of a model’s response. In this paper, we investigate whether Dialogue Games—goal-directed and rule-governed activities driven predominantly by verbal actions—can also serve as a source of feedback signals for learning.We introduce Playpen, an environment for off- and online learning through Dialogue Game self-play, and investigate a representative set of post-training methods: supervised fine-tuning; direct alignment (DPO); and reinforcement learning with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We experiment with post-training a small LLM (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct), evaluating performance on unseen instances of training games as well as unseen games, and on standard benchmarks. We find that imitation learning through SFT improves performance on unseen instances, but negatively impacts other skills, while interactive learning with GRPO shows balanced improvements without loss of skills. We release the framework and the baseline training setups to foster research in this promising new direction of “learning in (synthetic) interaction”.

We make the case for language models over logical forms (LFLMs), arguing that such models are more data-efficient than their textual counterparts. To that end, we introduce the  ̲Graph-based  ̲Formal- ̲Logical  ̲Distributional  ̲Semantics (GFoLDS) prototype, a pretrained LM over graph representations of logical forms, as a proof-of-concept of LFLMs. Using GFoLDS, we present strong experimental evidence that LFLMs can leverage the built-in, basic linguistic knowledge inherent in such models to immediately begin learning more complex patterns. On downstream tasks, we show that GFoLDS vastly outperforms textual, transformer LMs (BERT) pretrained on the same data, indicating that LFLMs can learn with substantially less data than models over plain text. Furthermore, we show that the performance of this model is likely to scale with additional parameters and pretraining data, suggesting the viability of LFLMs in real-world applications.

NLI tasks necessitate a substantial degree of logical reasoning; as such, the remarkable performance of SoTA transformers on these tasks may lead us to believe that those models have learned to reason logically. The results presented in this paper demonstrate that (i) models fine-tuned on NLI datasets learn to treat external negation as a distractor, effectively ignoring its presence in hypothesis sentences; (ii) several near-SoTA encoder and encoder-decoder transformer models fail to inductively learn the law of the excluded middle for a single external negation prefix with respect to NLI tasks, despite extensive fine-tuning; (iii) those models which are are able to learn the law of the excluded middle for a single prefix are unable to generalize this pattern to similar prefixes. Given the critical role of negation in logical reasoning, we may conclude from these findings that transformers do not learn to reason logically when fine-tuned for NLI tasks. Furthermore, these results suggest that transformers may not be able to inductively learn the role of negation with respect to NLI tasks, calling into question their capacity to fully acquire logical reasoning abilities.

Modeling the most likely label when an annotation task is perspective-dependent discards relevant sources of variation that come from the annotators themselves. We present three approaches to modeling the controversiality of a particular text. First, we explicitly represented annotators using annotator embeddings to predict the training signals of each annotator’s selections in addition to a majority class label. This method leads to reduction in error relative to models without these features, allowing the overall result to influence the weights of each annotator on the final prediction. In a second set of experiments, annotators were not modeled individually but instead annotator judgments were combined in a pairwise fashion that allowed us to implicitly combine annotators. Overall, we found that aggregating and explicitly comparing annotators’ responses to a static document representation produced high-quality predictions in all datasets, though some systems struggle to account for large or variable numbers of annotators.