Large language models have demonstrated impressive performance on commonsense tasks; however, these tasks are often posed as multiple-choice questions, allowing models to exploit systematic biases. Commonsense is also inherently probabilistic with multiple correct answers. The purpose of “boiling water” could be making tea, cooking but also could be killing germs. Existing tasks do not capture the probabilistic nature of common sense. To this end, we present commonsense frame completion (CFC), a new generative task that evaluates common sense via multiple open-ended generations. We also propose a method of probabilistic evaluation that strongly correlates with human judgments. Humans drastically outperform strong language model baselines on our dataset, indicating this approach is both a challenging and useful evaluation of machine common sense.

At the foundation of scientific evaluation is the labor-intensive process of peer review. This critical task requires participants to consume vast amounts of highly technical text. Prior work has annotated different aspects of review argumentation, but discourse relations between reviews and rebuttals have yet to be examined. We present DISAPERE, a labeled dataset of 20k sentences contained in 506 review-rebuttal pairs in English, annotated by experts. DISAPERE synthesizes label sets from prior work and extends them to include fine-grained annotation of the rebuttal sentences, characterizing their context in the review and the authors’ stance towards review arguments. Further, we annotate every review and rebuttal sentence. We show that discourse cues from rebuttals can shed light on the quality and interpretation of reviews. Further, an understanding of the argumentative strategies employed by the reviewers and authors provides useful signal for area chairs and other decision makers.