Jing Li

Erxin Yu, Jing Li, Ming Liao et al.

Although large language models demonstrate strong performance across various domains, they still struggle with numerous bad cases in mathematical reasoning. Previous approaches to learning from errors synthesize training data by solely extrapolating from isolated bad cases, thereby failing to generalize the extensive patterns inherent within these cases. This paper presents Self-Error-Instruct (SEI), a framework that addresses these model weaknesses and synthesizes more generalized targeted training data. Specifically, we explore a target model on two mathematical datasets, GSM8K and MATH, to pinpoint bad cases. Then, we generate error keyphrases for these cases based on the instructor model's (GPT-4o) analysis and identify error types by clustering these keyphrases. Next, we sample a few bad cases during each generation for each identified error type and input them into the instructor model, which synthesizes additional training data using a self-instruct approach. This new data is refined through a one-shot learning process to ensure that only the most effective examples are kept. Finally, we use these curated data to fine-tune the target model, iteratively repeating the process to enhance performance. We apply our framework to various models and observe improvements in their reasoning abilities across both in-domain and out-of-domain mathematics datasets. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of self-error instruction in improving LLMs' mathematical reasoning through error generalization.

Jichuan Zeng, Jing Li, Yulan He et al.

In our world with full of uncertainty, debates and argumentation contribute to the progress of science and society. Despite of the increasing attention to characterize human arguments, most progress made so far focus on the debate outcome, largely ignoring the dynamic patterns in argumentation processes. This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness, beyond simply predicting who will persuade whom. Specifically, we propose a novel neural model that is able to dynamically track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations, allowing the investigation of their roles in influencing the outcomes of persuasion. Extensive experiments have been conducted on argumentative conversations on both social media and supreme court. The results show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art models in identifying persuasive arguments via explicitly exploring dynamic factors of topic and discourse. We further analyze the effects of topics and discourse on persuasiveness, and find that they are both useful - topics provide concrete evidence while superior discourse styles may bias participants, especially in social media arguments. In addition, we draw some findings from our empirical results, which will help people better engage in future persuasive conversations.