A Simple Method for Commonsense Reasoning
Open accessAbstract
Commonsense reasoning is a long-standing challenge for deep learning. For example, it is difficult to use neural networks to tackle the Winograd Schema dataset (Levesque et al., 2011). In this paper, we present a simple method for commonsense reasoning with neural networks, using unsupervised learning. Key to our method is the use of language models, trained on a massive amount of unlabled data, to score multiple choice questions posed by commonsense reasoning tests. On both Pronoun Disambiguation and Winograd Schema challenges, our models outperform previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin, without using expensive annotated knowledge bases or hand-engineered features. We train an array of large RNN language models that operate at word or character level on LM-1-Billion, CommonCrawl, SQuAD, Gutenberg Books, and a customized corpus for this task and show that diversity of training data plays an important role in test performance. Further analysis also shows that our system successfully discovers important features of the context that decide the correct answer, indicating a good grasp of commonsense knowledge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Tsimpoukelli et al. train a vision encoder that encodes an image into a sequence of embeddings that can be used to prompt a frozen autoregressive LM to generate the appropriate caption.
“Tsimpoukelli et al. [135] train a vision encoder that encodes an image into a sequence of embeddings that can be used to prompt a frozen autoregressive LM to generate the appropriate caption.”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [135]
The resulting model from Tsimpoukelli et al. can perform few-shot learning for vision-language tasks such as visual question answering.
“They show that the resulting model can perform few-shot learning for vision-language tasks such as visual question answering, and so on.”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [135]
With the help of a few demonstrations, a system can rapidly learn words for new objects and novel visual categories in the multimodal setting.
“Empirical results show few-shot learning ability: With the help of a few demonstrations (answered prompts), system can rapidly learn words for new objects and novel visual categories.”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [135]
Only very few works have explored input-dependent prompts in text generation.
“Only very few works have explored input-dependent ones [135].”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [135]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 293
- Authors
- Trinh, T. H., & Le, Q. V.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1806.02847
- OpenAlex
- W2805206884
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 7
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- commonsense reasoning, Winograd Schema Challenge, multiple-choice question answering, unsupervised learning, language models, training data diversity
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