Always Tell Me The Odds: Fine-grained Conditional Probability Estimation

Anqi Liu; Benjamin Van Durme; Liaoyaqi Wang; Zhengping Jiang

arxiv: 2505.01595 · v2 · submitted 2025-05-02 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

Always Tell Me The Odds: Fine-grained Conditional Probability Estimation

Liaoyaqi Wang , Zhengping Jiang , Anqi Liu , Benjamin Van Durme This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 16:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

keywords fine-grained conditional probability estimationlarge language modelsprobability calibrationuncertainty handlingsynthetic data augmentationhuman evaluationprobabilistic prediction

0 comments

The pith

Large language models trained with human and synthetic probability data can deliver accurate fine-grained conditional probability estimates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper seeks to create better ways for language models to estimate the probability of propositions given context when information is incomplete. Standard models tend to give rough, biased guesses favoring common percentages. The authors generate data through human judgments and synthetic examples, scale up the models, and apply improved training methods to build more accurate estimators. Evaluations on tasks needing conditional probabilities show large gains over prior fine-tuning and prompting techniques. If successful, this would allow AI systems to handle uncertainty more reliably in practical applications.

Core claim

Through a combination of human and synthetic data creation and assessment, scaling to larger models, and better supervision, we propose a set of strong and precise probability estimation models. We conduct systematic evaluations across tasks that rely on conditional probability estimation and show that our approach consistently outperforms existing fine-tuned and prompting-based methods by a large margin.

What carries the argument

Human and synthetic data creation and assessment pipeline used to train fine-grained conditional probability estimation models in large language models.

If this is right

The resulting models deliver fine-grained probability values instead of coarse ones.
Probability estimates are better calibrated and less biased toward frequent numbers.
Performance improves substantially on tasks that depend on accurate conditional probability estimation.
The approach scales with larger model sizes and enhanced supervision signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Such improvements might allow language models to better support probabilistic reasoning in complex scenarios like legal analysis or scientific hypothesis testing.
The methods could be adapted to estimate probabilities in multimodal settings with text and images.
Better probability estimates may reduce errors in applications that aggregate multiple uncertain judgments.

Load-bearing premise

The human and synthetic data creation and assessment methods produce accurate, unbiased representations of true conditional probabilities under uncertainty and partial information.

What would settle it

A direct comparison showing that the models' assigned probabilities do not align with actual frequencies in a large set of controlled experiments with partial information would disprove the improved estimation claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01595 by Anqi Liu, Benjamin Van Durme, Liaoyaqi Wang, Zhengping Jiang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of our distribution quantization process. Notice that how the quantiza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of token-level distribution between our model and human label distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The Spearman Correlation over Pairwise Comparison Iterations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Analysis of GPT-4.0 on NLI probability pairwise comparison tests. (a) Higher label [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a state-of-the-art model for fine-grained probability estimation of propositions conditioned on context. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities, particularly on well-defined tasks with complete information. However, LLMs continue to struggle with making accurate and well-calibrated probabilistic predictions under uncertainty or partial information. While incorporating uncertainty into model predictions often boosts performance, obtaining reliable estimates of that uncertainty remains understudied. In particular, LLM probability estimates tend to be coarse and biased towards more frequent numbers. Through a combination of human and synthetic data creation and assessment, scaling to larger models, and better supervision, we propose a set of strong and precise probability estimation models. We conduct systematic evaluations across tasks that rely on conditional probability estimation and show that our approach consistently outperforms existing fine-tuned and prompting-based methods by a large margin.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows concrete gains on fine-grained probability estimation by mixing human and synthetic labels with larger models, but the label accuracy is the unexamined weak point.

read the letter

The key takeaway is that this work targets a practical weakness in LLMs: they give coarse, biased probability estimates under partial information, and the authors improve on that with a targeted training pipeline. They combine human annotations and synthetic data, scale the models, and add better supervision to produce estimates that beat both prompting and fine-tuning baselines on downstream tasks that require conditional probabilities. That part is useful and directly addresses a limitation people actually run into when trying to use LLMs for decisions with uncertainty. The evaluations look systematic across multiple tasks, which gives the results some weight even without seeing every number here. The soft spot is the data itself. The approach rests on the claim that the human and synthetic labels are accurate proxies for true conditional probabilities, yet the description does not include inter-annotator agreement on the probability values or checks against known empirical frequencies. Without those, it is possible the reported large-margin gains partly reflect training on the same distribution of biases rather than genuine calibration improvement. An ablation on label noise would have made the central result more convincing. This paper is for groups working on uncertainty quantification and calibration in language models, especially those who need better probability outputs for downstream applications like planning or risk assessment. A reader already thinking about these issues will find the experimental framing and comparisons worth looking at. It deserves a serious referee because the problem is real, the experiments are concrete, and the gaps are fixable rather than fatal.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents models for fine-grained conditional probability estimation of propositions given context in LLMs. It combines human and synthetic data creation/assessment, model scaling, and improved supervision to produce precise estimates, then evaluates on downstream tasks requiring conditional probability estimation, claiming consistent large-margin outperformance over fine-tuned and prompting baselines.

Significance. If the central claims hold after addressing data validation, the work would be significant for improving LLM calibration and uncertainty handling under partial information, a persistent weakness in current models. The empirical focus on multiple tasks and the hybrid data approach could provide a practical path forward if label quality is demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[Section 3 and Section 4] Section 3 (Data Creation) and Section 4 (Assessment): No inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported for human-assigned probability values, nor is there calibration of synthetic labels against known empirical frequencies or ground-truth distributions. This is load-bearing for the large-margin gains reported in Tables 3–5, as biased or noisy labels could produce artifactual improvements rather than genuine advances in probability estimation.
[Tables 3–5] Tables 3–5: The evaluation sections must include quantitative metrics (e.g., exact Brier scores, ECE values, or log-likelihood differences), baseline details, and error analysis to substantiate the abstract's claim of 'large margin' outperformance; the current description supplies insufficient detail to verify the effect sizes or rule out confounds.

minor comments (2)

[Section 2] Clarify the precise operational definition of 'fine-grained' versus coarse probability estimation and how supervision differs from standard cross-entropy training.
[Discussion] Add a limitations section discussing potential biases in human probability judgments (e.g., anchoring) and distributional mismatch in synthetic data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the two major comments below and will incorporate revisions to improve data validation reporting and evaluation detail.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section 3 and Section 4] Section 3 (Data Creation) and Section 4 (Assessment): No inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported for human-assigned probability values, nor is there calibration of synthetic labels against known empirical frequencies or ground-truth distributions. This is load-bearing for the large-margin gains reported in Tables 3–5, as biased or noisy labels could produce artifactual improvements rather than genuine advances in probability estimation.

Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of inter-annotator agreement and synthetic label calibration is essential to substantiate label quality. In the revised version we will add these statistics: for human annotations we will report average pairwise Pearson correlation and mean absolute deviation across annotators on the probability values; for synthetic labels we will include a calibration analysis comparing generated probabilities to empirical frequencies on held-out subsets with known distributions. These additions will be placed in Section 4 and will directly support the reliability of the gains in Tables 3–5. revision: yes
Referee: [Tables 3–5] Tables 3–5: The evaluation sections must include quantitative metrics (e.g., exact Brier scores, ECE values, or log-likelihood differences), baseline details, and error analysis to substantiate the abstract's claim of 'large margin' outperformance; the current description supplies insufficient detail to verify the effect sizes or rule out confounds.

Authors: We concur that additional quantitative metrics and analysis are needed for full verification. The revised manuscript will expand Tables 3–5 to report exact Brier scores, Expected Calibration Error (ECE), and log-likelihood values for every model and baseline. We will also enlarge the baseline descriptions to specify exact prompting templates, fine-tuning hyperparameters, and model sizes. A new error-analysis paragraph will be added to discuss representative failure cases, effect-size breakdowns by task, and checks for potential confounds such as data overlap or scale differences. These changes will make the claimed margins verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical data-driven model improvement

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical pipeline of human and synthetic data creation, model scaling, and supervision to train probability estimators, then evaluates them on external downstream tasks. No derivation chain, first-principles result, or prediction is claimed that reduces by construction to the paper's own fitted inputs or self-citations. The central claims rest on held-out task performance rather than any self-referential fitting or renamed ansatz. This is a standard empirical contribution with independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only access prevents identification of specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The described approach rests on standard LLM scaling and data curation practices whose details and assumptions are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5680 in / 971 out tokens · 89425 ms · 2026-05-22T16:25:52.398118+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We split the interval [0, 1] into N bins ... expected label scoring rule ... forward KL-divergence loss

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

MoCo: A One-Stop Shop for Model Collaboration Research
cs.CL 2026-01 accept novelty 6.0

MoCo supplies a unified library of 26 collaboration strategies and benchmarks demonstrating average outperformance over single models in 61 percent of (model, data) pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D15-1075. URL https://aclanthology.org/D15-1075/. Shulin Cao, Jiajie Zhang, Jiaxin Shi, Xin Lv, Zijun Yao, Qi Tian, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. Prob- abilistic tree-of-thought reasoning for answering knowledge-intensive complex questions. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), Findings ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 2023
[2]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.33/. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33 2022
[3]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp 2022
[4]

I‘d rather just go to bed

URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.508/. Alisa Liu, Zhaofeng Wu, Julian Michael, Alane Suhr, Peter West, Alexander Koller, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. We’re afraid language models aren’t modeling ambiguity. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 790–807, 2023. Annie...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.601 2022
[5]

Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski

URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:270562235. Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:677–694, 2019. doi: 10. 1162/tacl_a_00293. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/Q19-1043. R. L. Plackett. The analysis of permutations. Journal of the Royal St...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020 2019
[6]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.330. Robert Vacareanu, Vlad Andrei Negru, Vasile Suciu, and Mihai Surdeanu. From words to numbers: Your large language model is secretly a capable regressor when given in-context examples. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330 2023
[7]

URL https:// doi.org/10.18653/v1/p19-1472

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08152. Gal Yona, Shay Moran, Gal Elidan, and Amir Globerson. Active learning with label com- parisons. In The 38th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=S2zMhPUi5xq. Moy Yuan, Eric Chamoun, Rami Aly, Chenxi Whitehouse, and Andreas Vlachos. PRobELM: Plausibility ranking...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1472 2022
[8]

Use relevant world knowledge to assess contextual factors (e.g., demographics, common practices, or statistical distributions) that may influence the likelihood of the hypothesis given the premise

work page
[9]

Perform the probabilistic reasoning to estimate the conditional probability P( Hypothesis | Premise)

work page
[10]

Reasoning:

Assign a probability score between [0, 1] that quantifies P(Hypothesis | Premise). Ensure this score reflects the strength of the connection between the premise and hypothesis based on probabilistic reasoning and world knowledge. Premise: {premise} Hypothesis: {hypothesis} Your final probability estimate should be a value in the range [0,1], as fine-grain...

work page 2025
[11]

- Related premise and hypothesis do not necessarily cause high probability

{reasoning_4} Important Considerations: - Think like a human, go beyond literal semantics by considering context, common sense, and real-world knowledge. - Related premise and hypothesis do not necessarily cause high probability. - Assign higher confidence to assumptions that are more commonly observed and reasoning processes that are logically sound, ful...

work page
[12]

probability: 0.00000027

hypothesis: Three brothers pound on some drums premise: Three men dressed in white shirts and white hats, (two with baseball caps, the leader with a white construction helmet), pounding sticks on steel and plastic drums. probability: 0.00000027

work page
[13]

premise: A young african boy skipping rocks

hypothesis: There is a rock currently skipping down a pond. premise: A young african boy skipping rocks. probability: 0.058

work page
[14]

premise: A man is standing in the doorway of a building

hypothesis: The man is walking into a room. premise: A man is standing in the doorway of a building. probability: 0.2639

work page
[15]

premise: At least six individuals are on a team wearing helmets and knee pads while rollerblading around a skating rink

hypothesis: People are rollerblading for something to do. premise: At least six individuals are on a team wearing helmets and knee pads while rollerblading around a skating rink. probability: 0.5

work page
[16]

probability: 0.7342

hypothesis: A brown dog is outside and it's snowing premise: A brown dog plays in a deep pile of snow. probability: 0.7342

work page
[17]

premise: Two girls in a crowd are dressed up, one as the cartoon character Wall-E

hypothesis: Two girls attend a convention. premise: Two girls in a crowd are dressed up, one as the cartoon character Wall-E. probability: 0.94

work page
[18]

premise: many children play in the water

hypothesis: Some kids splash in the water and interact with each other. premise: many children play in the water. probability: 0.99 Output Format: - The confidence score for other agents should be a decimal value between 0 and 1, formatted as: \\boxed{{confidence1, confidence2,confidence3,confidence4}} - Example output: \\boxed{{0.1,0.5,0.8,0.2}} 26 Publi...

work page 2025
[19]

Consider contextual factors such as demographics, common practices, or statistical distributions to estimate the likelihood of the hypothesis being true

Contextual Assessment with World Knowledge Analyze each pair: Evaluate the premise and hypothesis using relevant world knowledge. Consider contextual factors such as demographics, common practices, or statistical distributions to estimate the likelihood of the hypothesis being true. State assumptions: Explicitly identify any assumptions or uncertainties i...

work page
[20]

Justify your reasoning for why one hypothesis is more likely than the other, considering the degree of alignment and the assumptions made

Comparison Compare the likelihood of each hypothesis based on the alignment between the premise and hypothesis. Justify your reasoning for why one hypothesis is more likely than the other, considering the degree of alignment and the assumptions made. If the likelihoods of both hypotheses are sufficiently close or indistinguishable, return a None. Passage ...

work page
[21]

)]) D.6 EntailmentBank, e-CARE Rewrite system: You are a helpful assistant

Output Format Example: In your final decision, strictly output \boxed{{Passage A}}, \boxed{{Passage B}} or \ boxed{{None}}")]) D.6 EntailmentBank, e-CARE Rewrite system: You are a helpful assistant"), human: Given a natural language inferenc passage: {passage} Your goal: Rewrite the original premise and hypothesis Generate 2 new premises related to the pa...

work page
[22]

can," "might

Rewrite the original premise and hypothesis for clarity and precision - Ensure both the premise and hypothesis are clear, precise, and logically sound. - Removed unnecessary modal verbs (e.g., "can," "might") and hedging language (e.g., " possibly," "somewhat"). - If needed, specify a concrete example for clarity

work page
[23]

Generate new premises that modify the likelihood of the hypothesis being inferred: - Ensure all generated premises are factually correct and logically consistent. - Here are strategies you may consider to adjust the probability of inference: - Alternative Explanation (Misattribution): Provide a different cause for the phenomenon , weakening or shifting in...

work page
[24]

- moderately likely(probability~0.7): Premises that are related to the passage but are more general, potentially requiring additional context to confirm the hypothesis

Categorize Premises into Four Bins Based on Probability - highly likely(probability~0.9): Premises that strongly support the hypothesis but may introduce slight variation or broader interpretations. - moderately likely(probability~0.7): Premises that are related to the passage but are more general, potentially requiring additional context to confirm the h...

work page 2025
[25]

premise":

Format the output as a valid JSON object with the following structure: {{ "premise": "Your revised premise here.", "hypothesis": "Your revised hypothesis here.", "highly likely": [premise1, premise2], "moderately likely": [premise1, premise2], "neutral": [premise1, premise2], "unlikely": [premise1, premise2], "contradict": [premise1, premise2] }}

work page
[26]

28 Published as a conference paper at COLM 2025 E Example Structural Reasoning Traces In this section, we provide example traces constructed to evaluate local scoring models

Recheck that output statements are factually accurate and format is a valid JSON. 28 Published as a conference paper at COLM 2025 E Example Structural Reasoning Traces In this section, we provide example traces constructed to evaluate local scoring models. The example reasoning trace corresponds to an instance from the BIRD dataset for C2S-Sent-B (Feng et...

work page 2025

[1] [1]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D15-1075. URL https://aclanthology.org/D15-1075/. Shulin Cao, Jiajie Zhang, Jiaxin Shi, Xin Lv, Zijun Yao, Qi Tian, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. Prob- abilistic tree-of-thought reasoning for answering knowledge-intensive complex questions. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), Findings ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 2023

[2] [2]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.33/. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33 2022

[3] [3]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp 2022

[4] [4]

I‘d rather just go to bed

URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.508/. Alisa Liu, Zhaofeng Wu, Julian Michael, Alane Suhr, Peter West, Alexander Koller, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. We’re afraid language models aren’t modeling ambiguity. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 790–807, 2023. Annie...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.601 2022

[5] [5]

Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski

URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:270562235. Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:677–694, 2019. doi: 10. 1162/tacl_a_00293. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/Q19-1043. R. L. Plackett. The analysis of permutations. Journal of the Royal St...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020 2019

[6] [6]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.330. Robert Vacareanu, Vlad Andrei Negru, Vasile Suciu, and Mihai Surdeanu. From words to numbers: Your large language model is secretly a capable regressor when given in-context examples. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330 2023

[7] [7]

URL https:// doi.org/10.18653/v1/p19-1472

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08152. Gal Yona, Shay Moran, Gal Elidan, and Amir Globerson. Active learning with label com- parisons. In The 38th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=S2zMhPUi5xq. Moy Yuan, Eric Chamoun, Rami Aly, Chenxi Whitehouse, and Andreas Vlachos. PRobELM: Plausibility ranking...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1472 2022

[8] [8]

Use relevant world knowledge to assess contextual factors (e.g., demographics, common practices, or statistical distributions) that may influence the likelihood of the hypothesis given the premise

work page

[9] [9]

Perform the probabilistic reasoning to estimate the conditional probability P( Hypothesis | Premise)

work page

[10] [10]

Reasoning:

Assign a probability score between [0, 1] that quantifies P(Hypothesis | Premise). Ensure this score reflects the strength of the connection between the premise and hypothesis based on probabilistic reasoning and world knowledge. Premise: {premise} Hypothesis: {hypothesis} Your final probability estimate should be a value in the range [0,1], as fine-grain...

work page 2025

[11] [11]

- Related premise and hypothesis do not necessarily cause high probability

{reasoning_4} Important Considerations: - Think like a human, go beyond literal semantics by considering context, common sense, and real-world knowledge. - Related premise and hypothesis do not necessarily cause high probability. - Assign higher confidence to assumptions that are more commonly observed and reasoning processes that are logically sound, ful...

work page

[12] [12]

probability: 0.00000027

hypothesis: Three brothers pound on some drums premise: Three men dressed in white shirts and white hats, (two with baseball caps, the leader with a white construction helmet), pounding sticks on steel and plastic drums. probability: 0.00000027

work page

[13] [13]

premise: A young african boy skipping rocks

hypothesis: There is a rock currently skipping down a pond. premise: A young african boy skipping rocks. probability: 0.058

work page

[14] [14]

premise: A man is standing in the doorway of a building

hypothesis: The man is walking into a room. premise: A man is standing in the doorway of a building. probability: 0.2639

work page

[15] [15]

premise: At least six individuals are on a team wearing helmets and knee pads while rollerblading around a skating rink

hypothesis: People are rollerblading for something to do. premise: At least six individuals are on a team wearing helmets and knee pads while rollerblading around a skating rink. probability: 0.5

work page

[16] [16]

probability: 0.7342

hypothesis: A brown dog is outside and it's snowing premise: A brown dog plays in a deep pile of snow. probability: 0.7342

work page

[17] [17]

premise: Two girls in a crowd are dressed up, one as the cartoon character Wall-E

hypothesis: Two girls attend a convention. premise: Two girls in a crowd are dressed up, one as the cartoon character Wall-E. probability: 0.94

work page

[18] [18]

premise: many children play in the water

hypothesis: Some kids splash in the water and interact with each other. premise: many children play in the water. probability: 0.99 Output Format: - The confidence score for other agents should be a decimal value between 0 and 1, formatted as: \\boxed{{confidence1, confidence2,confidence3,confidence4}} - Example output: \\boxed{{0.1,0.5,0.8,0.2}} 26 Publi...

work page 2025

[19] [19]

Consider contextual factors such as demographics, common practices, or statistical distributions to estimate the likelihood of the hypothesis being true

Contextual Assessment with World Knowledge Analyze each pair: Evaluate the premise and hypothesis using relevant world knowledge. Consider contextual factors such as demographics, common practices, or statistical distributions to estimate the likelihood of the hypothesis being true. State assumptions: Explicitly identify any assumptions or uncertainties i...

work page

[20] [20]

Justify your reasoning for why one hypothesis is more likely than the other, considering the degree of alignment and the assumptions made

Comparison Compare the likelihood of each hypothesis based on the alignment between the premise and hypothesis. Justify your reasoning for why one hypothesis is more likely than the other, considering the degree of alignment and the assumptions made. If the likelihoods of both hypotheses are sufficiently close or indistinguishable, return a None. Passage ...

work page

[21] [21]

)]) D.6 EntailmentBank, e-CARE Rewrite system: You are a helpful assistant

Output Format Example: In your final decision, strictly output \boxed{{Passage A}}, \boxed{{Passage B}} or \ boxed{{None}}")]) D.6 EntailmentBank, e-CARE Rewrite system: You are a helpful assistant"), human: Given a natural language inferenc passage: {passage} Your goal: Rewrite the original premise and hypothesis Generate 2 new premises related to the pa...

work page

[22] [22]

can," "might

Rewrite the original premise and hypothesis for clarity and precision - Ensure both the premise and hypothesis are clear, precise, and logically sound. - Removed unnecessary modal verbs (e.g., "can," "might") and hedging language (e.g., " possibly," "somewhat"). - If needed, specify a concrete example for clarity

work page

[23] [23]

Generate new premises that modify the likelihood of the hypothesis being inferred: - Ensure all generated premises are factually correct and logically consistent. - Here are strategies you may consider to adjust the probability of inference: - Alternative Explanation (Misattribution): Provide a different cause for the phenomenon , weakening or shifting in...

work page

[24] [24]

- moderately likely(probability~0.7): Premises that are related to the passage but are more general, potentially requiring additional context to confirm the hypothesis

Categorize Premises into Four Bins Based on Probability - highly likely(probability~0.9): Premises that strongly support the hypothesis but may introduce slight variation or broader interpretations. - moderately likely(probability~0.7): Premises that are related to the passage but are more general, potentially requiring additional context to confirm the h...

work page 2025

[25] [25]

premise":

Format the output as a valid JSON object with the following structure: {{ "premise": "Your revised premise here.", "hypothesis": "Your revised hypothesis here.", "highly likely": [premise1, premise2], "moderately likely": [premise1, premise2], "neutral": [premise1, premise2], "unlikely": [premise1, premise2], "contradict": [premise1, premise2] }}

work page

[26] [26]

28 Published as a conference paper at COLM 2025 E Example Structural Reasoning Traces In this section, we provide example traces constructed to evaluate local scoring models

Recheck that output statements are factually accurate and format is a valid JSON. 28 Published as a conference paper at COLM 2025 E Example Structural Reasoning Traces In this section, we provide example traces constructed to evaluate local scoring models. The example reasoning trace corresponds to an instance from the BIRD dataset for C2S-Sent-B (Feng et...

work page 2025