REVIEW 2 cited by
Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs. One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps. Another line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers. Aiming to resolve the trade-off between answer accuracy and interpretability, we present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning proofs. As long as LLMs correctly translate problem descriptions into Prolog representations, the corresponding reasoning proofs are ensured to be causal and reliable. On two logical reasoning and one arithmetic reasoning datasets, our framework obtains significant improvements in terms of both answer accuracy and reasoning proof accuracy. Our code is released at https://github.com/DAMO-NLP-SG/CaRing
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Neuro-Symbolic AI in 2024: A Systematic Review
A systematic review of 158 Neuro-Symbolic AI papers finds research concentrated in learning and inference, with explainability, trustworthiness, and Meta-Cognition as underrepresented gaps.
-
A Comprehensive Survey on Integrating Large Language Models with Knowledge-Based Methods
A narrative review of LLM knowledge integration that categorizes techniques and compiles benchmarks, but lacks a systematic method and contains unreliable citations.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.