Ziyi Liu

Ziyi Liu, Soumya Sanyal, Isabelle Lee et al. · amazon-science, uw

In a plethora of recent work, large language models (LLMs) demonstrated impressive reasoning ability, but many proposed downstream reasoning tasks only focus on final answers. Two fundamental questions persist: 1) how consistent is the reasoning, and 2) can models detect unreliable reasoning? In this paper, we investigate self-contradictory (Self-Contra) reasoning, where the model reasoning does not support its answers. To answer 1), we define and assess the Self-Contra rate across three datasets and delve into finer-grained categories of Self-Contra reasoning. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves in reasoning tasks involving contextual information understanding or commonsense. The model may generate correct answers by taking shortcuts in reasoning or overlooking contextual evidence, leading to compromised reasoning. For 2), we task the state-of-the-art model GPT-4 with identifying Self-Contra reasoning and finer-grained fallacies. We find that finer-grained categories enhanced detection can improve GPT-4's ability to detect Self-Contra. However, it is only able to detect Self-Contra with a 52.2% F1 score, much lower compared to 66.7% for humans. Our results indicate that current LLMs lack the robustness necessary for reliable reasoning and we emphasize the urgent need for establishing best practices in comprehensive reasoning evaluations beyond pure performance-based metrics.

Ziyi Liu, Idan Attias, Daniel M. Roy

In this work, we investigate the problem of adapting to the presence or absence of causal structure in multi-armed bandit problems. In addition to the usual reward signal, we assume the learner has access to additional variables, observed in each round after acting. When these variables $d$-separate the action from the reward, existing work in causal bandits demonstrates that one can achieve strictly better (minimax) rates of regret (Lu et al., 2020). Our goal is to adapt to this favorable "conditionally benign" structure, if it is present in the environment, while simultaneously recovering worst-case minimax regret, if it is not. Notably, the learner has no prior knowledge of whether the favorable structure holds. In this paper, we establish the Pareto optimal frontier of adaptive rates. We prove upper and matching lower bounds on the possible trade-offs in the performance of learning in conditionally benign and arbitrary environments, resolving an open question raised by Bilodeau et al. (2022). Furthermore, we are the first to obtain instance-dependent bounds for causal bandits, by reducing the problem to the linear bandit setting. Finally, we examine the common assumption that the marginal distributions of the post-action contexts are known and show that a nontrivial estimate is necessary for better-than-worst-case minimax rates.