PreprintCited by 98Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations

Open access
Jung, Jaehun, Qin, Lianhui, Welleck, Sean, Brahman, Faeze, Bhagavatula, Chandra, Bras, Ronan Le, Choi, Yejin·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Despite their impressive capabilities, large pre-trained language models (LMs) struggle with consistent reasoning; recently, prompting LMs to generate explanations that self-guide the inference has emerged as a promising direction to amend this. However, these approaches are fundamentally bounded by the correctness of explanations, which themselves are often noisy and inconsistent. In this work, we develop Maieutic Prompting, which infers a correct answer to a question even from the noisy and inconsistent generations of LM. Maieutic Prompting induces a tree of explanations abductively (e.g. X is true, because ...) and recursively, then frames the inference as a satisfiability problem over these explanations and their logical relations. We test Maieutic Prompting for true/false QA on three challenging benchmarks that require complex commonsense reasoning. Maieutic Prompting achieves up to 20% better accuracy than state-of-the-art prompting methods, and as a fully unsupervised approach, performs competitively with supervised models. We also show that Maieutic Prompting improves robustness in inference while providing interpretable rationales.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2205.11822

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, et al. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977. · arXiv
  2. Roberto Battiti. 2009. Maximum satisfiability problem, pages 2035-2041. Springer US, Boston, MA.
  3. Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Chaitanya Malaviya, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ari Holtzman, Han- nah Rashkin, Doug Downey, Scott Wen-tau Yih, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Abductive commonsense reason- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05739. · arXiv
  4. Kaj Bostrom, Xinyu Zhao, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Greg Durrett. 2021. Flexible generation of natural language deductions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 6266-6278.
  5. Faeze Brahman, Vered Shwartz, Rachel Rudinger, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Learning to rationalize for non- monotonic reasoning with distant supervision. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on In- novative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Ad- vances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Vir- tual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 12592-12601. AAAI Press.
  6. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert- Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
  7. Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2018. e-snli: Nat- ural language inference with natural language expla- nations. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 31.
  8. Howard Chen, Jacqueline He, Karthik Narasimhan, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Can rationalization improve robustness? arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.11790. · arXiv
  9. Xinyun Chen, Chen Liang, Adams Wei Yu, Denny Zhou, Dawn Song, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Neural symbolic reader: Scalable integration of distributed and symbolic representations for reading compre- hension. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  10. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavar- ian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training veri- fiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
  11. Bhavana Dalvi, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. 2022. Towards teachable reasoning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13074. · arXiv
  12. Mengnan Du, Ninghao Liu, and Xia Hu. 2019. Tech- niques for interpretable machine learning. Commu- nications of the ACM, 63(1):68-77.
  13. Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhi- lasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and im- proving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031.
  14. Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, 9:346-361.
  15. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text de- generation. In International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
  16. Ari Holtzman, Peter West, Vered Shwartz, Yejin Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. Surface form compe- tition: Why the highest probability answer isn't al- ways right. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 7038-7051.
  17. Alon Jacovi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar, Yejin Choi, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Contrastive explanations for model interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1597-1611.
  18. Nora Kassner and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Negated and misprimed probes for pretrained language models: Birds can talk, but cannot fly. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 7811-7818, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  19. Nora Kassner, Oyvind Tafjord, Hinrich Schütze, and Peter Clark. 2021. Beliefbank: Adding memory to a pre-trained language model for a systematic notion of belief. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8849-8861.
  20. Daniel Khashabi, Sewon Min, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Unifiedqa: Crossing for- mat boundaries with a single qa system. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1896-1907.
  21. Jannik Kossen, Neil Band, Clare Lyle, Aidan N Gomez, Thomas Rainforth, and Yarin Gal. 2021. Self- attention between datapoints: Going beyond individ- ual input-output pairs in deep learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:28742- 28756.
  22. Andrew K Lampinen, Ishita Dasgupta, Stephanie CY Chan, Kory Matthewson, Michael Henry Tessler, Antonia Creswell, James L McClelland, Jane X Wang, and Felix Hill. 2022. Can language models learn from explanations in context? arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02329. · arXiv
  23. Jiacheng Liu, Alisa Liu, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Pe- ter West, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2021. Generated knowledge prompt- ing for commonsense reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08387. · arXiv
  24. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  25. Nicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Unicorn on rainbow: A uni- versal commonsense reasoning model on a new mul- titask benchmark. In Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13480-13488.
  26. Ximing Lu, Peter West, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2021a. Neu- rologic decoding:(un) supervised neural text genera- tion with predicate logic constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4288-4299.
  27. Pasquale Minervini and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Ad- versarially regularising neural nli models to inte- grate logical background knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08609. · arXiv
  28. António Morgado, Carmine Dodaro, and Joao Marques-Silva. 2014. Core-guided maxsat with soft cardinality constraints. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Program- ming, pages 564-573. Springer.
  29. Sharan Narang, Colin Raffel, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Noah Fiedel, and Karishma Malkan. 2020. Wt5?! training text-to-text models to explain their predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14546. · arXiv
  30. Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, et al. 2021a. Show your work: Scratch- pads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114. · arXiv
  31. Maxwell Nye, Michael Tessler, Josh Tenenbaum, and Brenden M Lake. 2021b. Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual- system, neuro-symbolic reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34.
  32. Charles Sanders Peirce. 1974. Collected papers of charles sanders peirce, volume 5. Harvard Univer- sity Press.
  33. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Kather- ine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to- text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 21(140):1-67.
  34. Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain your- self! leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4932-4942.
  35. Vered Shwartz, Peter West, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Unsupervised commonsense question answering with self-talk. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4615-4629.
  36. Shikhar Singh, Nuan Wen, Yu Hou, Pegah Alipoormo- labashi, Te-lin Wu, Xuezhe Ma, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. COM2SENSE: A commonsense reasoning benchmark with complementary sentences. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 883-898, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  37. Alon Talmor, Ori Yoran, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bha- gavatula, Yoav Goldberg, Yejin Choi, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. CommonsenseQA 2.0: Exposing the limits of AI through gamification. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems.
  38. Gregory Vlastos. 1991. Socrates, ironist and moral philosopher, volume 50. Cornell University Press.
  39. Haohan Wang, Da Sun, and Eric P Xing. 2019. What if we simply swap the two text fragments? a straight- forward yet effective way to test the robustness of methods to confounding signals in nature language inference tasks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, pages 7136-7143.
  40. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. · arXiv
  41. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. · arXiv
  42. Sean Welleck, Ilia Kulikov, Jaedeok Kim, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Consistency of a recurrent language model with respect to incomplete decoding. In Proceed- ings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5553-5568.
  43. Sarah Wiegreffe and Ana Marasović. 2021. Teach me to explain: A review of datasets for explainable nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.12060. · arXiv
  44. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122.
  45. Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. arXiv preprint arxiv:2205.03401. · arXiv
  46. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improv- ing few-shot performance of language models. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jung, J., Qin, L., Welleck, S., Brahman, F., Bhagavatula, C., Bras, R. L., & Choi, Y.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
1266-1279
OpenAlex
W4385572965
Cited by
98
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 3
FWCI
10.78
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001, N66001-19-2-4031, N66001-19)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific
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
abductive reasoning, logical consistency, commonsense reasoning, pre-trained language 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