REVIEW 3 cited by
PINTO: Faithful Language Reasoning Using Prompt-Generated Rationales
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
Neural language models (LMs) have achieved impressive results on various language-based reasoning tasks by utilizing latent knowledge encoded in their own pretrained parameters. To make this reasoning process more explicit, recent works retrieve a rationalizing LM's internal knowledge by training or prompting it to generate free-text rationales, which can be used to guide task predictions made by either the same LM or a separate reasoning LM. However, rationalizing LMs require expensive rationale annotation and/or computation, without any assurance that their generated rationales improve LM task performance or faithfully reflect LM decision-making. In this paper, we propose PINTO, an LM pipeline that rationalizes via prompt-based learning, and learns to faithfully reason over rationales via counterfactual regularization. First, PINTO maps out a suitable reasoning process for the task input by prompting a frozen rationalizing LM to generate a free-text rationale. Second, PINTO's reasoning LM is fine-tuned to solve the task using the generated rationale as context, while regularized to output less confident predictions when the rationale is perturbed. Across four datasets, we show that PINTO significantly improves the generalization ability of the reasoning LM, yielding higher performance on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution test sets. Also, we find that PINTO's rationales are more faithful to its task predictions than those generated by competitive baselines.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Rationales Are Not Silver Bullets: Measuring the Impact of Rationales on Model Performance and Reliability
Rationale-augmented finetuning can hurt accuracy while improving calibration, with the sizes of both effects tied linearly to task difficulty.
-
Rethinking Human Preference Evaluation of LLM Rationales
A fine-grained attribute-based evaluation of LLM rationales can explain human preferences and reveal model trade-offs that binary comparisons obscure.
-
ECCoT: A Framework for Enhancing Effective Cognition via Chain of Thought in Large Language Model
A framework that prunes 'ineffective' chain-of-thought steps using topic models and causal embeddings reports accuracy gains on three reasoning benchmarks, but lacks reproducibility details.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.