REVIEW 3 cited by
Generating Natural Language Proofs with Verifier-Guided Search
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Reasoning over natural language is a challenging problem in NLP. In this work, we focus on proof generation: Given a hypothesis and a set of supporting facts, the model generates a proof tree indicating how to derive the hypothesis from supporting facts. Compared to generating the entire proof in one shot, stepwise generation can better exploit the compositionality and generalize to longer proofs but has achieved limited success on real-world data. Existing stepwise methods struggle to generate proof steps that are both logically valid and relevant to the hypothesis. Instead, they tend to hallucinate invalid steps given the hypothesis. In this paper, we present a novel stepwise method, NLProofS (Natural Language Proof Search), which learns to generate relevant steps conditioning on the hypothesis. At the core of our approach, we train an independent verifier to check the validity of the proof steps to prevent hallucination. Instead of generating steps greedily, we search for proofs maximizing a global proof score judged by the verifier. NLProofS achieves state-of-the-art performance on EntailmentBank and RuleTaker. Specifically, it improves the correctness of predicted proofs from 27.7% to 33.3% in the distractor setting of EntailmentBank, demonstrating the effectiveness of NLProofS in generating challenging human-authored proofs.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Helpful Agent Meets Deceptive Judge: Understanding Vulnerabilities in Agentic Workflows
LLM agents frequently switch correct answers after one round of misleading feedback, and the new WAFER-QA benchmark measures this with web-backed critiques.
-
PROBE: Benchmarking Code Generation in Large Language Models
A multi-language evaluation framework measuring correctness, solution proximity, and code quality finds current LLMs pass at most ~0.70 per language and worsen sharply with problem difficulty.
-
Mitigating Spurious Correlations in LLMs via Causality-Aware Post-Training
Fine-tuning a 3B LLM on randomly symbolized reasoning questions reduces spurious-correlation failures and improves OOD accuracy on CLadder and PrOntoQA.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.