Despite their unprecedented success, even the largest language models make mistakes.Similar to how humans learn and improve using feedback, previous work proposed providing language models with natural language feedback to guide them in repairing their outputs. Because human-generated critiques are expensive to obtain, researchers have devised learned critique generators in lieu of human critics while assuming one can train downstream models to utilize generated feedback. However, this approach does not apply to black-box or limited access models such as ChatGPT, as they cannot be fine-tuned. Moreover, in the era of large general-purpose language agents, fine-tuning is neither computationally nor spatially efficient as it results in multiple copies of the network. In this work, we introduce RL4F (Reinforcement Learning for Feedback), a multi-agent collaborative framework where the critique generator is trained to maximize end-task performance of GPT-3, a fixed model more than 200 times its size. RL4F produces critiques that help GPT-3 revise its outputs. We study three datasets for action planning, summarization and alphabetization and show relative improvements up to 10% in multiple text similarity metrics over other learned, retrieval-augmented or prompting-based critique generators.

Given the ubiquitous nature of numbers in text, reasoning with numbers to perform simple calculations is an important skill of AI systems. While many datasets and models have been developed to this end, state-of-the-art AI systems are brittle; failing to perform the underlying mathematical reasoning when they appear in a slightly different scenario. Drawing inspiration from GLUE that was proposed in the context of natural language understanding, we propose NumGLUE, a multi-task benchmark that evaluates the performance of AI systems on eight different tasks, that at their core require simple arithmetic understanding. We show that this benchmark is far from being solved with neural models including state-of-the-art large-scale language models performing significantly worse than humans (lower by 46.4 %). Further, NumGLUE promotes sharing knowledge across tasks, especially those with limited training data as evidenced by the superior performance (average gain of 3.4 % on each task) when a model is jointly trained on all the tasks as opposed to task-specific modeling. Finally, we hope that NumGLUE will encourage systems that perform robust and general arithmetic reasoning within language, a first step towards being able to perform more complex mathematical reasoning.

Mathematical reasoning skills are essential for general-purpose intelligentsystems to perform tasks from grocery shopping to climate modeling.Towards evaluating and improving AI systems in this domain, we proposeLILA, a unified mathematical reasoning benchmark consisting of 23 diversetasks along four dimensions:(i) mathematical abilities e.g., arithmetic, calculus (ii) language format e.g., question-answering, fill-in-the-blanks (iii) language diversity e.g., no language, simple language (iv) external knowledge e.g., commonsense, physics. We construct our benchmark by extending 20 datasets benchmark by collecting task instructions and solutions in the form of Python programs,thereby obtaining explainable solutions in addition to the correct answer.We additionally introduce two evaluation datasets to measure out-of-distribution performance and robustness to language perturbation.Finally, we introduce BHASKARA,a general-purpose mathematical reasoning model trained on LILA. Importantly, we find that multi-tasking leads to significant improvements (average relative improvement of 21.83% F1 score vs. single-task models),while the best performing model only obtains 60.40%,indicating the room for improvement in general mathematical reasoning and understanding.

Many real-world problems require the combined application of multiple reasoning abilities—employing suitable abstractions, commonsense knowledge, and creative synthesis of problem-solving strategies. To help advance AI systems towards such capabilities, we propose a new reasoning challenge, namely Fermi Problems (FPs), which are questions whose answers can only be approximately estimated because their precise computation is either impractical or impossible. For example, “How much would the sea level rise if all ice in the world melted?” FPs are commonly used in quizzes and interviews to bring out and evaluate the creative reasoning abilities of humans. To do the same for AI systems, we present two datasets: 1) A collection of 1k real-world FPs sourced from quizzes and olympiads; and 2) a bank of 10k synthetic FPs of intermediate complexity to serve as a sandbox for the harder real-world challenge. In addition to question-answer pairs, the datasets contain detailed solutions in the form of an executable program and supporting facts, helping in supervision and evaluation of intermediate steps. We demonstrate that even extensively fine-tuned large-scale language models perform poorly on these datasets, on average making estimates that are off by two orders of magnitude. Our contribution is thus the crystallization of several unsolved AI problems into a single, new challenge that we hope will spur further advances in building systems that can reason.