Cited by 132Topic ModelingLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeNatural Language Processing Techniques

ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language

Open access
Tafjord, Oyvind, Dalvi, Bhavana, Clark, Peter·2021·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021

Abstract

Transformers have been shown to emulate logical deduction over natural language theories (logical rules expressed in natural language), reliably assigning true/false labels to candidate implications.However, their ability to generate implications of a theory has not yet been demonstrated, and methods for reconstructing proofs of answers are imperfect.In this work we show that a generative model, called ProofWriter, can reliably generate both implications of a theory and the natural language proofs that support them.In particular, iterating a 1-step implication generator results in proofs that are highly reliable, and represent actual model decisions (rather than post-hoc rationalizations).On the RuleTaker dataset, the accuracy of ProofWriter's proofs exceed previous methods by +9% absolute, and in a way that generalizes to proof depths unseen in training and on out-of-domain problems.We also show that generative techniques can perform a type of abduction with high precision: Given a theory and an unprovable conclusion, identify a missing fact that allows the conclusion to be proved, along with a proof.These results significantly improve the viability of neural methods for systematically reasoning over natural language.1

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.317

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ProofWriter is a synthetic dataset created to assess deductive reasoning abilities of LLMs.

    “ProofWriter (Tafjord et al., 2021) is a synthetic dataset created to assess deductive reasoning abilities of LLMs.”

    From OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents (2024) · cites this paper as Tafjord et al., 2021

    The Abstract calls ProofWriter a generative model, not a dataset. Section 4, “Datasets,” says the authors evaluate ProofWriter using the RuleTaker datasets and two new variants. The paper therefore distinguishes ProofWriter from the datasets used to assess its reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ProofWriter is a synthetically generated dataset for logical reasoning over natural language.

    “ProofWriter, meanwhile, is a synthetically generated dataset for logical reasoning over natural language.”

    From LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers (2023) · cites this paper as Tafjord et al., 2021

    The Introduction calls ProofWriter “our system,” not a dataset. Section 4 says the system is evaluated using RuleTaker datasets and two new variants; those datasets contain natural-language reasoning questions. The claim confuses the system with the data used to evaluate it. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous deductive reasoning benchmarks such as RuleTaker, ProofWriter, and ProntoQA studied proof depths up to five steps or hops.

    “Early work on deductive reasoning benchmarks such as RuleTaker (Clark et al., 2020) and ProofWriter (Tafjord et al., 2021) established the basic setup of query answering over sets of rules and facts, with ProofWriter reaching a maximum proof depth of five steps.ProntoQA (Saparov and He, 2023) introduces proof-structure controls and formal error attribution, also evaluated up to five hops.”
  • These previous benchmarks revealed that models at the time struggle as proof depth increases, but the depths studied remain shallow.

    “These benchmarks revealed that models at the time struggle as proof depth increases, but the depths studied remain shallow.”
  • A model that has learned a robust implementation of the proof-tree tracing algorithm should, in principle, generalize beyond the shallow depths seen in previous benchmarks.

    “This process is algorithmic; a model that has learned a robust implementation of this algorithm should, in principle, generalize beyond the shallow depths seen in previous benchmarks (Clark et al., 2020;Tafjord et al., 2021;Saparov and He, 2023).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Chaitanya Malaviya, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ari Holtzman, Han- nah Rashkin, Doug Downey, S. Yih, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Abductive commonsense reasoning. In ICLR'20.
  2. Tim Rocktäschel and S. Riedel. 2017. End-to-end dif- ferentiable proving. In NeurIPS.
  3. Daniel Selsam, Matthew Lamm, Benedikt Bünz, Percy Liang, Leonardo de Moura, and David L. Dill. 2019. Learning a SAT solver from single-bit supervision. In ICLR.
  4. Alon Talmor, Oyvind Tafjord, P. Clark, Y. Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. LeapOfThought: Teach- ing pre-trained models to systematically reason over implicit knowledge. In NeurIPS.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tafjord, O., Dalvi, B., & Clark, P.
Affiliations
Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021
Published
2021
Pages
3621-3634
OpenAlex
W3115201256
Cited by
122
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 9
FWCI
9.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
proof generation, abductive reasoning, large language models, generative models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review