NLI under the Microscope: What Atomic Hypothesis Decomposition Reveals

Decomposition of text into atomic propositions is a flexible framework allowing for the closer inspection of input and output text. We use atomic decomposition of hypotheses in two natural language reasoning tasks, traditional NLI and defeasible NLI, to form atomic sub-problems, or granular inferences that models must weigh when solving the overall problem. These atomic sub-problems serve as a tool to further understand the structure of both NLI and defeasible reasoning, probe a model's consistency and understanding of different inferences, and measure the diversity of examples in benchmark datasets. Our results indicate that LLMs still struggle with logical consistency on atomic NLI and defeasible NLI sub-problems. Lastly, we identify critical atomic sub-problems of defeasible NLI examples, or those that most contribute to the overall label, and propose a method to measure the inferential consistency of a model, a metric designed to capture the degree to which a model makes consistently correct or incorrect predictions about the same fact under different contexts.

Whose Boat Does it Float? Improving Personalization in Preference Tuning via Inferred User Personas

LLMs are tuned to follow instructions (aligned) by learning which of two outputs users prefer for a prompt. However, this preference data format does not convey why users prefer responses that are chosen or rejected, so LLMs trained on these datasets cannot tailor responses to varied user needs. To surface these parameters of personalization, we apply abductive reasoning to preference data, inferring needs and interests of users, i.e. personas, that may prefer each output. We test this idea in two steps: Persona Inference (PI)-abductively inferring personas of users who prefer chosen or rejected outputs-and Persona Tailoring (PT)-training models to tailor responses to personas from PI. We find: 1) LLMs infer personas accurately explaining why different users may prefer both chosen or rejected outputs; 2) Training on preference data augmented with PI personas via PT boosts personalization, enabling models to support user-written personas; and 3) Rejected response personas form harder personalization evaluations, showing PT better aids users with uncommon preferences versus typical alignment methods. We argue for an abductive view of preferences for personalization, asking not only which response is better but when, why, and for whom.

Natural Language Inference Improves Compositionality in Vision-Language Models

Compositional reasoning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remains challenging as these models often struggle to relate objects, attributes, and spatial relationships. Recent methods aim to address these limitations by relying on the semantics of the textual description, using Large Language Models (LLMs) to break them down into subsets of questions and answers. However, these methods primarily operate on the surface level, failing to incorporate deeper lexical understanding while introducing incorrect assumptions generated by the LLM. In response to these issues, we present Caption Expansion with Contradictions and Entailments (CECE), a principled approach that leverages Natural Language Inference (NLI) to generate entailments and contradictions from a given premise. CECE produces lexically diverse sentences while maintaining their core meaning. Through extensive experiments, we show that CECE enhances interpretability and reduces overreliance on biased or superficial features. By balancing CECE along the original premise, we achieve significant improvements over previous methods without requiring additional fine-tuning, producing state-of-the-art results on benchmarks that score agreement with human judgments for image-text alignment, and achieving an increase in performance on Winoground of +19.2% (group score) and +12.9% on EqBen (group score) over the best prior work (finetuned with targeted data).

Susu Box or Piggy Bank: Assessing Cultural Commonsense Knowledge between Ghana and the U.S

Recent work has highlighted the culturally-contingent nature of commonsense knowledge. We introduce AMAMMER${\epsilon}$, a test set of 525 multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate the commonsense knowledge of English LLMs, relative to the cultural contexts of Ghana and the United States. To create AMAMMER${\epsilon}$, we select a set of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from existing commonsense datasets and rewrite them in a multi-stage process involving surveys of Ghanaian and U.S. participants. In three rounds of surveys, participants from both pools are solicited to (1) write correct and incorrect answer choices, (2) rate individual answer choices on a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) select the best answer choice from the newly-constructed MCQ items, in a final validation step. By engaging participants at multiple stages, our procedure ensures that participant perspectives are incorporated both in the creation and validation of test items, resulting in high levels of agreement within each pool. We evaluate several off-the-shelf English LLMs on AMAMMER${\epsilon}$. Uniformly, models prefer answers choices that align with the preferences of U.S. annotators over Ghanaian annotators. Additionally, when test items specify a cultural context (Ghana or the U.S.), models exhibit some ability to adapt, but performance is consistently better in U.S. contexts than Ghanaian. As large resources are devoted to the advancement of English LLMs, our findings underscore the need for culturally adaptable models and evaluations to meet the needs of diverse English-speaking populations around the world.

Reverse Question Answering: Can an LLM Write a Question so Hard (or Bad) that it Can't Answer?

Question answering (QA)-producing correct answers for input questions-is popular, but we test a reverse question answering (RQA) task: given an input answer, generate a question with that answer. Past work tests QA and RQA separately, but we test them jointly, comparing their difficulty, aiding benchmark design, and assessing reasoning consistency. 16 LLMs run QA and RQA with trivia questions/answers, showing: 1) Versus QA, LLMs are much less accurate in RQA for numerical answers, but slightly more accurate in RQA for textual answers; 2) LLMs often answer their own invalid questions from RQA accurately in QA, so RQA errors are not from knowledge gaps alone; 3) RQA errors correlate with question difficulty and inversely correlate with answer frequencies in the Dolma corpus; and 4) LLMs struggle to give valid multi-hop questions. By finding question and answer types yielding RQA errors, we suggest improvements for LLM RQA reasoning.

Plausibly Problematic Questions in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for Commonsense Reasoning

Questions involving commonsense reasoning about everyday situations often admit many $\textit{possible}$ or $\textit{plausible}$ answers. In contrast, multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks for commonsense reasoning require a hard selection of a single correct answer, which, in principle, should represent the $\textit{most}$ plausible answer choice. On $250$ MCQ items sampled from two commonsense reasoning benchmarks, we collect $5,000$ independent plausibility judgments on answer choices. We find that for over 20% of the sampled MCQs, the answer choice rated most plausible does not match the benchmark gold answers; upon manual inspection, we confirm that this subset exhibits higher rates of problems like ambiguity or semantic mismatch between question and answer choices. Experiments with LLMs reveal low accuracy and high variation in performance on the subset, suggesting our plausibility criterion may be helpful in identifying more reliable benchmark items for commonsense evaluation.

On the Influence of Gender and Race in Romantic Relationship Prediction from Large Language Models

We study the presence of heteronormative biases and prejudice against interracial romantic relationships in large language models by performing controlled name-replacement experiments for the task of relationship prediction. We show that models are less likely to predict romantic relationships for (a) same-gender character pairs than different-gender pairs; and (b) intra/inter-racial character pairs involving Asian names as compared to Black, Hispanic, or White names. We examine the contextualized embeddings of first names and find that gender for Asian names is less discernible than non-Asian names. We discuss the social implications of our findings, underlining the need to prioritize the development of inclusive and equitable technology.

Is Your Large Language Model Knowledgeable or a Choices-Only Cheater?

Recent work shows that large language models (LLMs) can answer multiple-choice questions using only the choices, but does this mean that MCQA leaderboard rankings of LLMs are largely influenced by abilities in choices-only settings? To answer this, we use a contrast set that probes if LLMs over-rely on choices-only shortcuts in MCQA. While previous works build contrast sets via expensive human annotations or model-generated data which can be biased, we employ graph mining to extract contrast sets from existing MCQA datasets. We use our method on UnifiedQA, a group of six commonsense reasoning datasets with high choices-only accuracy, to build an 820-question contrast set. After validating our contrast set, we test 12 LLMs, finding that these models do not exhibit reliance on choice-only shortcuts when given both the question and choices. Thus, despite the susceptibility~of MCQA to high choices-only accuracy, we argue that LLMs are not obtaining high ranks on MCQA leaderboards just due to their ability to exploit choices-only shortcuts.

Do Large Language Models Discriminate in Hiring Decisions on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?

We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit race- and gender-based name discrimination in hiring decisions, similar to classic findings in the social sciences (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004). We design a series of templatic prompts to LLMs to write an email to a named job applicant informing them of a hiring decision. By manipulating the applicant's first name, we measure the effect of perceived race, ethnicity, and gender on the probability that the LLM generates an acceptance or rejection email. We find that the hiring decisions of LLMs in many settings are more likely to favor White applicants over Hispanic applicants. In aggregate, the groups with the highest and lowest acceptance rates respectively are masculine White names and masculine Hispanic names. However, the comparative acceptance rates by group vary under different templatic settings, suggesting that LLMs' race- and gender-sensitivity may be idiosyncratic and prompt-sensitive.

How often are errors in natural language reasoning due to paraphrastic variability?

Large language models have been shown to behave inconsistently in response to meaning-preserving paraphrastic inputs. At the same time, researchers evaluate the knowledge and reasoning abilities of these models with test evaluations that do not disaggregate the effect of paraphrastic variability on performance. We propose a metric for evaluating the paraphrastic consistency of natural language reasoning models based on the probability of a model achieving the same correctness on two paraphrases of the same problem. We mathematically connect this metric to the proportion of a model's variance in correctness attributable to paraphrasing. To estimate paraphrastic consistency, we collect ParaNLU, a dataset of 7,782 human-written and validated paraphrased reasoning problems constructed on top of existing benchmark datasets for defeasible and abductive natural language inference. Using ParaNLU, we measure the paraphrastic consistency of several model classes and show that consistency dramatically increases with pretraining but not finetuning. All models tested exhibited room for improvement in paraphrastic consistency.