The DOI matches its DataCite record; 118 of the 151 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity
Open accessAbstract
This paper proposes a framework for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available data sets. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. We find that ChatGPT outperforms LLMs with zero-shot learning on most tasks and even outperforms fine-tuned models on some tasks. We find that it is better at understanding non-Latin script languages than generating them. It is able to generate multimodal content from textual prompts, via an intermediate code generation step. Moreover, we find that ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning, hence making it an unreliable reasoner. It is, for example, better at deductive than inductive reasoning. ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems like other LLMs and it generates more extrinsic hallucinations from its parametric memory as it does not have access to an external knowledge base. Finally, the interactive feature of ChatGPT enables human collaboration with the underlying LLM to improve its performance, i.e, 8% ROUGE-1 on summarization and 2% ChrF++ on machine translation, in a multi-turn "prompt engineering" fashion. We also release codebase for evaluation set extraction.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“ChatGPT generally performs poorly on commonsense reasoning tasks, but relatively better than non-text semantic reasoning [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Large language models (LLMs), such as Chat-GPT, are prone to generate hallucinations, i.e., content that conflicts with the source or cannot be verified by the factual knowledge.”
From HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On symbolic reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is mostly worse than GPT-3.5, which may be because ChatGPT is prone to uncertain responses, leading to poor performance [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On symbolic reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is mostly worse than GPT-3.5, which may be because ChatGPT is prone to uncertain responses, leading to poor performance [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Fine-tuned models, such as Vícuna and ChatGPT, exhibit exceptional performance with near-perfect scores, surpassing models that lack supervised fine-tuning by a significant margin [5, 6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The results indicated that these LLMs perform poorly when it came to non-Latin languages and languages with limited resources.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLMs also achieve satisfying performance across several natural language processing tasks, including machine translation [6, 130, 208], text generation [20], and question answering [102, 114].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“LLMs are prone to hallucination (Bang et al., 2023), where they generate plausible but factually incorrect or unverifiable information (Ji et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2025).”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, its proficiency in mathematical reasoning still requires improvement [6, 45, 265].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, ChatGPT demonstrates comparable zero-shot performance to the text-davinci-002 [6], but performs worse than GPT-3.5 [159].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Meanwhile, ChatGPT also lacks spatial reasoning ability, but exhibits better temporal reasoning.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research by Bang et al. [6] underscores that fully fine-tuned models tailored for specific tasks surpass ChatGPT in both task-oriented and knowledge-based dialogue contexts.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The findings from Bang et al. [6] indicated that ChatGPT performs X → Eng translation well, but it still lacks the ability to perform Eng → X translation.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In linguistic contexts featuring non-Latin scripts and limited resources, LLMs manifest suboptimal performance [2, 6, 100, 250].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As the evaluation by Bang et al. (2023) found, ChatGPT is only 63.41% accurate on average in ten different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and common-sense reasoning, making it an unreliable reasoner.”
From AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Bang et al. (2023)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, LLMs sometimes suffer from confabulations (or hallucinations), which can result in them making plausible but incorrect statements1,2.”
From Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In low-resource learning environments, LLMs exhibit significant advantages over small language models [251], but the ability of ChatGPT to understand low-resource languages is limited [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, Bang et al. [6] highlighted that ChatGPT still faces a limitation in translating sentences written in non-Latin script languages with rich linguistic resources.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“they exhibit noteworthy proficiency in temporal reasoning [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“However, like other LLMs, ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems. As it does not have access to an external knowledge base, more extrinsic hallucinations are generated [7].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT, Bing, and Medical Students in Germany (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models
Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., & Ommer, B. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01042 · Cited by 20,302 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundLearning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293 · cited 1×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundLewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821 · cited 4×
“The large version of Bart (Lewis et al., 2020b) model fine-tuned on both datasets is conducted for comparison.”
MethodInfluentialChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5446 · Cited by 4,222
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865
Teaching Machines to Read and ComprehendPreprint
Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Grefenstette, E., Espeholt, L., Kay, W., Suleyman, M., & Blunsom, P. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.03340 · Cited by 2,855 · cited 1×
“We test on 100 samples from two common summarization datasets: half from SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019), a dialogue summarization dataset, and another half from CNN/DM (Hermann et al., 2015; Nallapati et al., 2016), news summarization datasets.”
MethodPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · cited 2×
“Training data size affects language understanding and generation ability of LMs (Raffel et al., 2022; Cahyawijaya et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Work-shop et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoff-mann et al., 2022).”
BackgroundResultZero-shot text-to-image generation
Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A., Chen, M., & Sutskever, I. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.12092 · Cited by 2,417 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundAbstractive Text Summarization using Sequence-to-sequence RNNs and Beyond
Nallapati, R., Zhou, B., dos Santos, C., Gulcehre, C., & Xiang, B. (2016) · Proceedings of The 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning · doi:10.18653/v1/k16-1028 · Cited by 2,361 · cited 2×
“We test on 100 samples from two common summarization datasets: half from SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019), a dialogue summarization dataset, and another half from CNN/DM (Hermann et al., 2015; Nallapati et al., 2016), news summarization datasets.”
MethodNo Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine TranslationPreprint
Costa-jussà, M., Cross, J., Çelebi, O., Elbayad, M., Heafield, K., Heffernan, K., Kalbassi, E., Lam, J., Licht, D., Maillard, J., et al. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.04672 · Cited by 2,176 · cited 4×
“We experiment with 6 languages: French, Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Javanese, and Sundanese from the FLORES-200 dataset (Team et al., 2022; Goyal et al., 2021).”
MethodInfluentialA Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores
Post, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-6319 · Cited by 2,112 · cited 2×
“Evaluation: 1) human-targeted translation error rate (HTER) 8 , SacreBLEU (Post, 2018) and METEOR (Banerjee and Lavie, 2005) between the Marathi generated sentence compared to the human post-edited sentence, 2) HTER, Sacre-BLEU, METEOR, and semantic similarity score, i.e., BERTScore (Zhang* et al., 2020), between the…”
HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1259 · Cited by 1,804 · cited 1×
“To refine the summary, we simply input another prompt – “Please make the summary shorter” after the first response.”
MethodChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · cited 1×
“…(Guo et al., 2023; Davis, 2023b); it hallu-cinates with human-like fluency and eloquence on things that are not based on truth (Shen et al., 2023; Thorp, 2023; Smith, 2023); and as a general-purpose language model trained from everything on the web, its language coverage is questionable (Lu et…”
BackgroundGorp, A. V. (2012) · Psychology of Adjustment: The Search for Meaningful Balance · doi:10.1080/0046760x.2011.630029 · Cited by 1,375 · cited 2×
“Training data size affects language understanding and generation ability of LMs (Raffel et al., 2022; Cahyawijaya et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Work-shop et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoff-mann et al., 2022).”
BackgroundResultEmergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07682 · Cited by 1,264
chrF: character n-gram F-score for automatic MT evaluation
Popović, M. (2015) · Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation · doi:10.18653/v1/w15-3049 · Cited by 1,220 · cited 2×
“We evaluate the machine translation ability of Chat-GPT on both high-resource and low-resource languages using the ChrF++ metric (Popovi´c, 2015).”
BackgroundMethodDeep reinforcement learning from human preferences
Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T. B., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03741 · Cited by 1,058 · cited 7×
“ChatGPT is a successor of the large language model (LLM) InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) with a dialog interface that is fine-tuned using the Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017) approach.”
MethodInfluentialChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords
Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.230163 · Cited by 1,008 · cited 2×
“On the other hand, there has also been as much sharing of its failures in simple tasks (Gilson et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023).”
BackgroundCommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge
Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N., & Berant, J. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1421 · Cited by 919 · cited 2×
“Based on our evaluation with CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2018), PiQA (Bisk et al., 2020) and Pep-3k (Wang et al., 2018b), ChatGPT shows surprisingly good commonsense reasoning capability, perhaps due to its large parametric memory.”
MethodTruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 · Cited by 904
Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?
Qin, C., Zhang, A., Zhang, Z., Chen, J., Yasunaga, M., & Yang, D. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.85 · Cited by 869 · cited 1×
“…robust complex reasoning capabilities, which should also be facilitated by the creation of more comprehensive benchmarks for assessing these abilities, such as works by Laskar et al. (2023b); Qin et al. (2023); Davis (2023a), particularly when multiple abilities are required to complete the tasks.”
BackgroundIs ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?
Qin, C., Zhang, A., Zhang, Z., Chen, J., Yasunaga, M., & Yang, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.06476 · Cited by 869
Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models
Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11171 · Cited by 829 · cited 1×
“Reasoning is one of the most actively discussed and debated abilities of LLMs as scaling the model parameter size also increases the implicit knowledge in LLMs (Wei et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2022; Huang and Chang, 2022).”
BackgroundCommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense KnowledgePreprint
Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N., & Berant, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.00937 · Cited by 822
LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications
Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kulshreshtha, A., Cheng, H.-T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.08239 · Cited by 778 · cited 1×
“To ensure factuality, it is possible to build LLMs with an interface to an external knowledge source, like Blenderbot 3.0 (Shuster et al., 2022) and LaMDa (Thoppilan et al., 2022).”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationThe State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP World
Joshi, P., Santy, S., Budhiraja, A., Bali, K., & Choudhury, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.560 · Cited by 766 · cited 1×
“These raise the concern of language diversity and inclusivity in ChatGPT (Joshi et al., 2020; Aji et al., 2022).”
BackgroundChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none
Kocoń, J., Cichecki, I., Kaszyca, O., Kochanek, M., Szydło, D., Baran, J., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Janz, A., Kanclerz, K., et al. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101861 · Cited by 758
The role of AI in drug discovery: challenges, opportunities, and strategies
Blanco-González, A., Cabezón, A., Seco-González, A., Conde-Torres, D., Antelo-Riveiro, P., Piñeiro, Á., & Garcia-Fandino, R. (2023) · Pharmaceuticals · doi:10.3390/ph16060891 · Cited by 690
Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Tasks
Weston, J., Bordes, A., Chopra, S., Rush, A. M., van Merriënboer, B., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.05698 · Cited by 670 · cited 1×
“We first investigate basic reasoning skills with bAbI tasks (Weston et al., 2016b), 30 examples each from task 15 (inductive) and task 16 (deductive).”
MethodBeyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569 · cited 3×
“Mao et al. (2023) a tool’s usefulness to society by evaluating ChatGPT’s capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports
Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A. T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B. O., Ricke, J., et al. (2023) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10213-1 · Cited by 549 · cited 3×
“Responsible Generative AI Previous works have discussed the ethical implications or concerns associated with ChatGPT (and other LLMs) (Jabotinsky and Sarel, 2022; Susnjak, 2022; Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Aydın and Karaarslan, 2022; Jeblick et al., 2022).”
BackgroundIndoNLU: Benchmark and Resources for Evaluating Indonesian Natural Language Understanding
Wilie, B., Vincentio, K., Winata, G. I., Cahyawijaya, S., Li, X., Lim, Z. Y., Soleman, S., Mahendra, R., Fung, P., Bahar, S., et al. (2020) · Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (AACL-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.aacl-main.85 · Cited by 540
Self-citationThink you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge
Clark, P., Cowhey, I., Etzioni, O., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Schoenick, C., & Tafjord, O. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.05457 · Cited by 462 · cited 1×
“We provide the options to ChatGPT as: Choose from: left, right, above, below, lower-left, lower-right, upper-left, upper-right . we only use the QA part of EntailmentBank, that the authors took from ARC dataset (Clark et al., 2018), as we aim to test for reasoning capability.”
MethodReasoning with Language Model Prompting: A SurveyPreprint
Qiao, S.-F., Ou, Y., Zhang, N., Chen, X., Yao, Y., Deng, S.-M., Tan, C.-Q., Huang, F., & Chen, H.-J. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09597 · Cited by 456 · cited 5×
“Other works focus on more specific abilities such as mathematical skills (Davis, 2023b), reasoning (Webb et al., 2022a; Qiao et al., 2022).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTowards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey
Huang, J., & Chang, K. C.-C. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10403 · Cited by 428
SAMSum Corpus: A Human-annotated Dialogue Dataset for Abstractive Summarization
Gliwa, B., Mochol, I., Biesek, M., & Wawer, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5409 · Cited by 424 · cited 2×
“We test on 100 samples from two common summarization datasets: half from SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019), a dialogue summarization dataset, and another half from CNN/DM (Hermann et al., 2015; Nallapati et al., 2016), news summarization datasets.”
MethodThe Flores-101 Evaluation Benchmark for Low-Resource and Multilingual Machine Translation
Goyal, N., Gao, C., Chaudhary, V., Chen, P., Wenzek, G., Ju, D., Krishnan, S., Ranzato, M., Guzmán, F., & Fan, A. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00474 · Cited by 408 · cited 2×
“We experiment with 6 languages: French, Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Javanese, and Sundanese from the FLORES-200 dataset (Team et al., 2022; Goyal et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodEmergent analogical reasoning in large language models
Webb, T., Holyoak, K. J., & Lu, H. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01659-w · Cited by 404 · cited 2×
“Other works focus on more specific abilities such as mathematical skills (Davis, 2023b), reasoning (Webb et al., 2022a; Qiao et al., 2022).”
BackgroundAbductive Commonsense ReasoningPreprint
Bhagavatula, C., Bras, R. J. L., Malaviya, C., Sakaguchi, K., Holtzman, A., Rashkin, H., Downey, D., Yih, S., & Choi, Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.05739 · Cited by 394 · cited 1×
“We test ChatGPT’s language-based abductive reasoning ability with 30 samples from α NLI dataset (Bhagavatula et al., 2020), which requires the model to select the most plausible explanation given the conclusion.”
MethodOpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391 · cited 1×
“Responsible Generative AI Previous works have discussed the ethical implications or concerns associated with ChatGPT (and other LLMs) (Jabotinsky and Sarel, 2022; Susnjak, 2022; Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Aydın and Karaarslan, 2022; Jeblick et al., 2022).”
BackgroundChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370 · cited 2×
“Responsible Generative AI Previous works have discussed the ethical implications or concerns associated with ChatGPT (and other LLMs) (Jabotinsky and Sarel, 2022; Susnjak, 2022; Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Aydın and Karaarslan, 2022; Jeblick et al., 2022).”
BackgroundDissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 · Cited by 345 · cited 1×
“Mahowald et al. (2023) thoroughly studies LLMs capabilities by distinguishing formal and functional linguistic competence with reference to cognitive science, psychology, and NLP to clarify the discourse surrounding LLMs’ potential.”
Fortes, G. (2021) · A Logical Theory of Causality · doi:10.4135/9781483346663.n2 · Cited by 321 · cited 1×
“Inductive reasoning is based on “observations or evidence” while deductive is based on “truth of the premises” (i.e., necessarily true inference) (Douven, 2017).”
BackgroundHow Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection
Guo, B., Zhang, X., Wang, Z., Jiang, M., Nie, J., Ding, Y., Yue, J., & Wu, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.07597 · Cited by 318 · cited 3×
“Guo et al. (2023) conducts linguistic analyses of ChatGPT’s writing against human experts and found that ChatGPT responses are strictly focused on the given question, more formal, objective, and less emotional.”
BackgroundResultOpenDialKG: Explainable Conversational Reasoning with Attention-based Walks over Knowledge Graphs
Moon, S., Shah, P., Kumar, A., & Subba, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1081 · Cited by 306 · cited 1×
“To quantitatively measure ChatGPT’s performance on knowledge-grounded dialogue, we utilize 50 samples from the test set of OpenDialKG (Moon et al., 2019), which contains open-ended dialogues grounded on a knowledge path.”
MethodS oloist : BuildingTask Bots at Scale with Transfer Learning and Machine Teaching
Peng, B., Li, C., Li, J., Shayandeh, S., Lidén, L., & Gao, J. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00399 · Cited by 295
oLMpics-On What Language Model Pre-training Captures
Talmor, A., Elazar, Y., Goldberg, Y., & Berant, J. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00342 · Cited by 288
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Sušnjak, T., & McIntosh, T. R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060656 · Cited by 271 · cited 2×
“Responsible Generative AI Previous works have discussed the ethical implications or concerns associated with ChatGPT (and other LLMs) (Jabotinsky and Sarel, 2022; Susnjak, 2022; Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Aydın and Karaarslan, 2022; Jeblick et al., 2022).”
BackgroundChatGPT is not all you need. A state-of-the-art review of large generative AI models
Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchan, E. C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.04655 · Cited by 245
Analysing Mathematical Reasoning Abilities of Neural Models
Saxton, D., Grefenstette, E., Hill, F., & Kohli, P. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.01557 · Cited by 241 · cited 2×
“Not surprisingly, it could only score 23.33% (7/30) for the MATH dataset (Saxton et al., 2019), which tests mathematical reasoning.”
BackgroundInfluentialZang, X., Rastogi, A., & Chen, J. (2020) · Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI (NLP4ConvAI) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.nlp4convai-1.13 · Cited by 237 · cited 1×
“2 (Zang et al., 2020).”
Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher
Rae, J. W., Borgeaud, S., Cai, T., Millican, K., Hoffmann, J., Song, F., Aslanides, J., Henderson, S., Ring, R., Young, S., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.11446 · Cited by 235 · cited 1×
“Training data size affects language understanding and generation ability of LMs (Raffel et al., 2022; Cahyawijaya et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Work-shop et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoff-mann et al., 2022).”
BackgroundLai, V. D., Ngo, N. T., Veyseh, A. P. B., Man, H., Dernoncourt, F., Bui, T., & Nguyen, T. H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.05613 · Cited by 233 · cited 1×
“Nevertheless, ChatGPT still lacks the ability to understand and generate sentences in low-resource languages (§2.2), which is also supported by Lai et al. (2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialQA Dataset Explosion: A Taxonomy of NLP Resources for Question Answering and Reading Comprehension
Rogers, A., Gardner, M., & Augenstein, I. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560260 · Cited by 213 · cited 4×
“Inductive and deductive reasoning are common forms of logical reasoning that are categorized by “a degree to which the premise supports the conclusion” based on logic and philosophy (Qiao et al 2022; Rogers et al., 2022; Hawthorne, 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialCarnap, R. (1945) · Philosophia Scientiæ · doi:10.1086/286851 · Cited by 203 · cited 2×
“Inductive and deductive reasoning are common forms of logical reasoning that are categorized by “a degree to which the premise supports the conclusion” based on logic and philosophy (Qiao et al 2022; Rogers et al., 2022; Hawthorne, 2021).”
BackgroundKolko, J. (2017) · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3907-7 · Cited by 200 · cited 1×
“Another way to categorize is based on the “direction of reasoning” – deductive is from premise to conclusion while abductive is from conclusion to the most probable premise that supports the conclusion (Walton, 2014).”
Logic and artificial intelligence
Nilsson, N. J. (1991) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90049-p · Cited by 198
Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Generation with Pre-trained Language Models
Zhao, X., Wu, W., Xu, C., Tao, C., Zhao, D., & Yan, R. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.272 · Cited by 185 · cited 1×
“To boost informativeness, these systems leverage external knowledge, including structured knowledge such as knowledge graphs (Zhao et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2022b) and unstructured knowledge such as free text (Xu et al., 2022, 2023).”
BackgroundGPTEval: A Survey on Assessments of ChatGPT and GPT-4Preprint
Mao, R., Chen, G., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12488 · Cited by 178 · cited 1×
“Mao et al. (2023) a tool’s usefulness to society by evaluating ChatGPT’s capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans.”
BackgroundNews Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3
Goyal, T., Li, J. J., & Durrett, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.12356 · Cited by 175 · cited 1×
“Average of performances for CNN and DM from Goyal et al. (2022).”
UBAR: Towards Fully End-to-End Task-Oriented Dialog System with GPT-2
Yang, Y., Li, Y., & Quan, X. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i16.17674 · Cited by 175
One Country, 700+ Languages: NLP Challenges for Underrepresented Languages and Dialects in Indonesia
Aji, A. F., Winata, G. I., Koto, F., et al. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.13357 · Cited by 172 · cited 4×
“We explore the sentiment analysis ability of ChatGPT through 4 languages with diverse amounts of resources in NusaX (Winata et al., 2022): English (eng), Indonesian (ind), Javanese (jav), and Buginese (bug).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationGilson, A., Safranek, C., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.22283901 · Cited by 172
Red teaming ChatGPT via Jailbreaking: Bias, Robustness, Reliability and Toxicity
Zhuo, T. Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., & Xing, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.12867 · Cited by 164
NusaX: Multilingual Parallel Sentiment Dataset for 10 Indonesian Local Languages
Winata, G. I., Aji, A. F., Cahyawijaya, S., et al. (2022) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.15960 · Cited by 159
Self-citationExplaining Answers with Entailment Trees
Dalvi, B. B., Jansen, P. A., Tafjord, O., Xie, Z., Smith, H., Pipatanangkura, L., & Clark, P. E. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.585 · Cited by 148 · cited 1×
“When we repeat the analysis on advanced tasks, specifically on CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019) for induction and En-tailmentBank for deduction (Dalvi et al., 2021), the same conclusion holds based on our experiment.”
IndoNLG: Benchmark and Resources for Evaluating Indonesian Natural Language Generation
Cahyawijaya, S., Winata, G. I., Wilie, B., Vincentio, K., Li, X., Kuncoro, A., Ruder, S., Lim, Z. Y., Bahar, S., Khodra, M. L., et al. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.699 · Cited by 135 · cited 1×
“Training data size affects language understanding and generation ability of LMs (Raffel et al., 2022; Cahyawijaya et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Work-shop et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoff-mann et al., 2022).”
BackgroundSelf-citationWhat is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry?
Lawson, A. E. (2005) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20067 · Cited by 124 · cited 1×
“On the contrary, inductive reasoning involves specific observation of patterns , processing them on increasingly abstract cycles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning to draw a more general conclusion (Lawson, 2005).”
BackgroundStepGame: A New Benchmark for Robust Multi-Hop Spatial Reasoning in Texts
Shi, Z., Zhang, Q., & Lipani, A. (2022) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.08292 · Cited by 123 · cited 1×
“…physical commonsense reasoning: given a sentence such as “When boiling butter, when it’s ready, you can " , the goal is to fill in the blank with one of two answer options, “Pour it onto a plate" and “Pour Prompt Please judge if this predicate is (likely) plausible or implausible: “knife chop rock””
BackgroundMüller, B., Anastasopoulos, A., Sagot, B., & Seddah, D. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.38 · Cited by 121
Mavi, V., Jangra, A., & Jatowt, A. (2024) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000102 · Cited by 119 · cited 1×
“Multi-hop Reasoning To be able to reason over a larger context, a system has to perform multi-hop reasoning over more than one piece of information to arrive at the answer (Mavi et al., 2022).”
BackgroundSelf-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions
Wang, Y., Kordi, Y., Mishra, S., Liu, A., Smith, N. A., Khashabi, D., & Hajishirzi, H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10560 · Cited by 118
Enabling Multimodal Generation on CLIP via Vision-Language Knowledge Distillation
Dai, W., Hou, L., Shang, L.-F., et al. (2022) · Findings · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.06386 · Cited by 115 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCLUTRR: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Inductive Reasoning from Text
Sinha, K., Sodhani, S., Dong, J., Pineau, J., & Hamilton, W. L. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1458 · Cited by 110 · cited 3×
“An interesting finding along with CLUTRR was that Chat-GPT can’t differentiate son and grandson but can differentiate daughter and granddaughter when it induces the logical rules governing kinship relationships.”
UNKs Everywhere: Adapting Multilingual Language Models to New Scripts
Pfeiffer, J., Vulić, I., Gurevych, I., & Ruder, S. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.800 · Cited by 107
Benchmarks for Automated Commonsense Reasoning: A Survey
Davis, E. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3615355 · Cited by 101 · cited 1×
“…robust complex reasoning capabilities, which should also be facilitated by the creation of more comprehensive benchmarks for assessing these abilities, such as works by Laskar et al. (2023b); Qin et al. (2023); Davis (2023a), particularly when multiple abilities are required to complete the tasks.”
BackgroundNusaCrowd: Open Source Initiative for Indonesian NLP Resources
Cahyawijaya, S., Lovenia, H., Aji, A. F., et al. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09648 · Cited by 99 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, ChatGPT achieves near-perfect scores on three tasks, i.e., bAbI task 15, EntailmentBank, and Pep-3k.”
MethodSelf-citationChatGPT Makes Medicine Easy to Swallow: An Exploratory Case Study on Simplified Radiology Reports
Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A. T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B., Ricke, J., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.14882 · Cited by 97
Towards Few-shot Fact-Checking via Perplexity
Lee, N., Bang, Y., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.158 · Cited by 96 · cited 1×
“We test ChatGPT’s ability to detect misinformation with the test sets that consist of scientific and social claims related to COVID-19 (Lee et al., 2021) with 100 samples.”
MethodSelf-citationFew-Shot Bot: Prompt-Based Learning for Dialogue SystemsPreprint
Madotto, A., Lin, Z., Winata, G. I., & Fung, P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.08118 · Cited by 96 · cited 1×
“In detail, we ask the model to provide the belief state as domain-intent: [slot1, value1], . . . in the prompt following previous zero-shot (Lin et al., 2021) and few-shot (Madotto et al., 2021) approaches, and provide an exhaustive list of domain-intent-slot-value for the given dialogue.”
BackgroundSelf-citationPlausible May Not Be Faithful: Probing Object Hallucination in Vision-Language Pre-trainingPreprint
Dai, W., Liu, Z., Ji, Z., et al. (2022) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.07688 · Cited by 91 · cited 1×
“LLMs are known to be susceptible to generating nonfactual, untruthful information, which is referred to as hallucination (Lee et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2022a,b; Su et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023b; Xu et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSelf-citationRHO ($ρ$): Reducing Hallucination in Open-domain Dialogues with Knowledge GroundingPreprint
Ji, Z., Liu, Z., Lee, N., et al. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.01588 · Cited by 87 · cited 1×
“To boost informativeness, these systems leverage external knowledge, including structured knowledge such as knowledge graphs (Zhao et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2022b) and unstructured knowledge such as free text (Xu et al., 2022, 2023).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPutting ChatGPT's Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test
Nov, O., Singh, N., & Mann, D. M. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.10035 · Cited by 81 · cited 1×
“Nov et al. (2023) also studies ChatGPT’s generated medical advice if it passes the Turing test.”
BackgroundDissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.06627 · Cited by 80
AdaptSum: Towards Low-Resource Domain Adaptation for Abstractive Summarization
Yu, T., Liu, Z., & Fung, P. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.471 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“Interactivity on Summarization Summarization models aim to extract essential information from documents and to generate short, concise, and readable text (Yu et al., 2021b; Su et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationVision Guided Generative Pre-trained Language Models for Multimodal Abstractive Summarization
Yu, T., Dai, W., Liu, Z., & Fung, P. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.326 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBenchmarks for Automated Commonsense Reasoning: A Survey
Davis, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04752 · Cited by 77
ChatGPT for (Finance) Research: The Bananarama ConjecturePreprint
Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4322651 · Cited by 74 · cited 1×
“There are many investigations of ChatGPT’s understanding and potential applications in different fields such as law (Choi et al., 2023), medical domain (Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2022; Jeblick et al., 2022) and finance (Birch, 2022; Dowling and Lucey, 2023).”
BackgroundDescription-Driven Task-Oriented Dialog ModelingPreprint
Zhao, J., Gupta, R., Cao, Y., et al. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.08904 · Cited by 73
Factuality Enhanced Language Models for Open-Ended Text Generation
Lee, N., Ping, W., Xu, P., Patwary, M., Fung, P., Shoeybi, M., & Catanzaro, B. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04624 · Cited by 68 · cited 2×
“LLMs are known to be susceptible to generating nonfactual, untruthful information, which is referred to as hallucination (Lee et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2022a,b; Su et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023b; Xu et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSPARTQA: A Textual Question Answering Benchmark for Spatial Reasoning
Mirzaee, R., Faghihi, H. R., Qiang, N., & Kordjamshidi, P. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.364 · Cited by 66 · cited 1×
“…physical commonsense reasoning: given a sentence such as “When boiling butter, when it’s ready, you can " , the goal is to fill in the blank with one of two answer options, “Pour it onto a plate" and “Pour Prompt Please judge if this predicate is (likely) plausible or implausible: “knife chop rock””
BackgroundThoughtSource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data
Ott, S., Hebenstreit, K., Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Moradi, M., Mayrhauser, M., Praas, R., Winther, O., & Samwald, M. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02433-3 · Cited by 66 · cited 1×
“This aligns with the findings that LLMs are also limited in several ways, and fail to produce accurate predictions due to their inability to accomplish complex reasoning, such as solving tasks that require multi-hop reasoning (Ott et al., 2023).”
BackgroundThoughtSource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data
Ott, S., Hebenstreit, K., Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Moradi, M., Mayrhauser, M., Praas, R., Winther, O., & Samwald, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.11596 · Cited by 65
Commonsense Knowledge Reasoning and Generation with Pre-trained Language Models: A Survey
Bhargava, P., & Ng, V. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21496 · Cited by 62 · cited 1×
“Recent works show that LLMs perform impressively well on commonsense reasoning benchmarks (Qiao et al., 2022; Huang and Chang, 2022; Bhargava and Ng, 2022).”
BackgroundTIMEDIAL: Temporal Commonsense Reasoning in Dialog
Qin, L., Gupta, A., Upadhyay, S., He, L., Choi, Y., & Faruqui, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.549 · Cited by 59 · cited 1×
“For this category, we conduct experiments on the dataset TimeDial (Qin et al., 2021), which solely requires temporal reasoning.”
MethodIlmania, A., Abdurrahman, A., Cahyawijaya, S., & Purwarianti, A. (2018) · International Conference on Asian Language Processing · doi:10.1109/ialp.2018.8629181 · Cited by 59 · cited 1×
“Sentiment analysis has been widely explored for both high-resource and low-resource languages (Wang et al., 2018a; Wilie et al., 2020; Ilmania et al., 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citationZero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking via Cross-Task Transfer
Lin, Z., Liu, B., Madotto, A., Moon, S., Zhou, Z., Crook, P., Wang, Z., Zhou, Y., Cho, E., Subba, R., et al. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.622 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“In detail, we ask the model to provide the belief state as domain-intent: [slot1, value1], . . . in the prompt following previous zero-shot (Lin et al., 2021) and few-shot (Madotto et al., 2021) approaches, and provide an exhaustive list of domain-intent-slot-value for the given dialogue.”
BackgroundSelf-citationChapter 12. Learning Reasoning Strategies in End-to-End Differentiable Proving
Minervini, P., Riedel, S., Stenetorp, P., Grefenstette, E., & Rocktäschel, T. (2021) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia210359 · Cited by 56
Transfer Learning with Synthetic Corpora for Spatial Role Labeling and Reasoning
Mirzaee, R., & Kordjamshidi, P. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.16952 · Cited by 51
Mathematics, word problems, common sense, and artificial intelligencePreprint
Davis, E. (2023) · Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.09723 · Cited by 44
Modeling Semantic Plausibility by Injecting World Knowledge
Wang, S., Durrett, G., & Erk, K. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2049 · Cited by 40 · cited 4×
“We use Pep-3k (Wang et al., 2018b), which requires the model to recognize plausible but possibly novel events, such as “man swallow paintball" .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language
Bisk, Y., Zellers, R., Le bras, R., Gao, J., & Choi, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6239 · Cited by 37 · cited 3×
“Based on our evaluation with CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2018), PiQA (Bisk et al., 2020) and Pep-3k (Wang et al., 2018b), ChatGPT shows surprisingly good commonsense reasoning capability, perhaps due to its large parametric memory.”
MethodRead before Generate! Faithful Long Form Question Answering with Machine Reading
Su, D., Li, X., Zhang, J., Shang, L., Jiang, X., Liu, Q., & Fung, P. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.00343 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“LLMs are known to be susceptible to generating nonfactual, untruthful information, which is referred to as hallucination (Lee et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2022a,b; Su et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023b; Xu et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSelf-citationShades of BLEU, Flavours of Success: The Case of MultiWOZ
Nekvinda, T., & Dušek, O. (2021) · Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics (GEM) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.gem-1.4 · Cited by 29
Retrieval-Free Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Response Generation with Adapters
Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Cahyawijaya, S., Liu, Z., Winata, G. I., Madotto, A., Su, D., & Fung, P. (2022) · DialDoc Workshop on Document-grounded Dialogue and Conversational Question Answering (DialDoc) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.dialdoc-1.10 · Cited by 29
Self-citationCrosslingual Generalization through Multitask Finetuning
Muennighoff, N., Wang, T., Sutawika, L., Roberts, A., Biderman, S., Scao, T. L., Bari, M. S., Shen, S., Yong, Z.-X., Schoelkopf, H., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.01786 · Cited by 29
Improve Query Focused Abstractive Summarization by Incorporating Answer Relevance
Su, D., Yu, T., & Fung, P. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.275 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“Interactivity on Summarization Summarization models aim to extract essential information from documents and to generate short, concise, and readable text (Yu et al., 2021b; Su et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEmergent Analogical Reasoning in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Webb, T. W., Holyoak, K. J., & Lu, H. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09196 · Cited by 21
Specializing Multilingual Language Models: An Empirical Study
Chau, E. C., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning (MRL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.mrl-1.5 · Cited by 18
Moeller, P. D. (2005) · Educational Media Reviews Online · doi:10.59236/emro.v7i10a2680 · Cited by 18
Findings of the WMT 2022 Shared Task on Automatic Post-Editing
Bhattacharyya, P., Chatterjee, R., Freitag, M., et al. (2022) · Conference on Machine Translation · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.wmt-1.5 · Cited by 18
Modeling Semantic Plausibility by Injecting World KnowledgePreprint
Wang, S., Durrett, G., & Erk, K. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.00619 · Cited by 16
Modeling Event Plausibility with Consistent Conceptual Abstraction
Porada, I., Suleman, K., Trischler, A., et al. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.138 · Cited by 11
Diverse and Faithful Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Generation via Sequential Posterior Inference
Xu, Y., Kong, D., Xu, D., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.01153 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“LLMs are known to be susceptible to generating nonfactual, untruthful information, which is referred to as hallucination (Lee et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2022a,b; Su et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023b; Xu et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvery picture tells a story: Image-grounded controllable stylistic story generationPreprint
Lovenia, H., Wilie, B., Barraud, R., Cahyawijaya, S., Chung, W., & Fung, P. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.01638 · Cited by 6 · cited 1×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundSelf-citationA Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets
Laskar, M. T. R., Bari, M. S., Rahman, M., Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Joty, S., & Huang, J. X. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18486 · cited 1×
“There has been recent automatic or human-in-the-loop evaluations such as (Laskar et al., 2023a) Nevertheless, many of the benchmarks are not necessarily interpretable to laypeople for general purposes, such as named entity recognition and etc.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Li Du, Xiao Ding, Kai Xiong, Ting Liu, and Bing Qin. 2022. e-CARE: a new dataset for exploring explain- able causal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 432-446, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Simon Frieder, Luca Pinchetti, Ryan-Rhys Grif- fiths, Tommaso Salvatori, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Philipp Christian Petersen, Alexis Chevalier, and Julius Berner. 2023. Mathematical capabilities of chatgpt. · DOI · Paper page
- Aidan Gilson, Conrad Safranek, Thomas Huang, Vimig Socrates, Ling Chi, Richard Andrew Taylor, and David Chartash. 2022. How well does chatgpt do when taking the medical licensing exams? the im- plications of large language models for medical edu- cation and knowledge assessment. medRxiv, pages 2022-12.
- James Hawthorne. 2021. Inductive Logic. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso- phy, Spring 2021 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Si- monyan, Erich Elsen, Jack W. Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022a. Survey of halluci- nation in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. Just Accepted. · DOI · Paper page
- Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt a good translator? a preliminary study. · DOI · Paper page
- Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, M Saiful Bari, Mizanur Rahman, Md Amran Hossen Bhuiyan, Shafiq Joty, and Jimmy Huang. 2023a. A systematic study and comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT on benchmark datasets. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 431-469, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and com- prehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880.
- Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Ku- mar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Man- ning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Lad- hak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic eval- uation of language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Hongyuan Lu, Haoyang Huang, Shuming Ma, Dong- dong Zhang, Wai Lam, and Furu Wei. 2022. Trip: Triangular document-level pre-training for multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07752. · arXiv
- Pasquale Minervini, Sebastian Riedel, Pontus Stenetorp, Edward Grefenstette, and Tim Rocktäschel. 2020. Learning reasoning strategies in end-to-end differen- tiable proving. In Proceedings of the 37th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.
- Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
- Partha Pratim Ray. 2023. Chatgpt: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems.
- Zhengxiang Shi, Qiang Zhang, and Aldo Lipani. 2022b. StepGame: A new benchmark for robust multi-hop spatial reasoning in texts. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):11321- 11329. · DOI
- Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, William Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to respon- sibly engage. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Ada Wan. 2022. Fairness in representation for multi- lingual NLP: Insights from controlled experiments on conditional language modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Peter Cathcart Wason and Philip Nicholas Johnson- Laird. 1972. Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content, volume 86. Harvard University Press.
- Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Tomás Mikolov. 2016a. Towards ai-complete ques- tion answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. In 4th International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings.
- PMLR.
- Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Good- man. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
“, 2023) ✓ ✓ (Bang et al., 2023) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (Bai et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialHuang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 4,688
Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap
Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3352100 · Cited by 1,376
Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez‐Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13370 · Cited by 1,435
How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09009 · Cited by 507
Metadata
- Authors
- Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., Do, Q. V., Xu, Y., & Fung, P.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.04023
- OpenAlex
- W4319793302
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 184
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- 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
- ChatGPT, LLM evaluation, hallucinations, reasoning, multilingual NLP, multimodal generation, zero-shot learning, commonsense reasoning, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, human-AI collaboration, prompt engineering, summarization, machine translation
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
