Yash Mathur

Anubha Kabra, Sanketh Rangreji, Yash Mathur et al. · cmu

Prior work shows that program-aided reasoning, in which large language models (LLMs) are combined with programs written in programming languages such as Python, can significantly improve accuracy on various reasoning tasks. However, while accuracy is essential, it is also important for such reasoners to "know what they know", which can be quantified through the calibration of the model. In this paper, we compare the calibration of Program Aided Language Models (PAL) and text-based Chain-of-thought (COT) prompting techniques over 5 datasets and 2 model types: LLaMA models and OpenAI models. Our results indicate that PAL leads to improved calibration in 75% of the instances. Our analysis uncovers that prompting styles that produce lesser diversity in generations also have more calibrated results, and thus we also experiment with inducing lower generation diversity using temperature scaling and find that for certain temperatures, PAL is not only more accurate but is also more calibrated than COT. Overall, we demonstrate that, in the majority of cases, program-aided reasoners better know what they know than text-based counterparts.

Yash Mathur, Sanketh Rangreji, Raghav Kapoor et al.

Medical dialogue summarization is challenging due to the unstructured nature of medical conversations, the use of medical terminology in gold summaries, and the need to identify key information across multiple symptom sets. We present a novel system for the Dialogue2Note Medical Summarization tasks in the MEDIQA 2023 Shared Task. Our approach for section-wise summarization (Task A) is a two-stage process of selecting semantically similar dialogues and using the top-k similar dialogues as in-context examples for GPT-4. For full-note summarization (Task B), we use a similar solution with k=1. We achieved 3rd place in Task A (2nd among all teams), 4th place in Task B Division Wise Summarization (2nd among all teams), 15th place in Task A Section Header Classification (9th among all teams), and 8th place among all teams in Task B. Our results highlight the effectiveness of few-shot prompting for this task, though we also identify several weaknesses of prompting-based approaches. We compare GPT-4 performance with several finetuned baselines. We find that GPT-4 summaries are more abstractive and shorter. We make our code publicly available.

Atharva Naik, Yash Mathur, Prakam et al.

LLMs can solve program synthesis tasks but remain inefficient and unreliable on hard instances requiring large combinatorial search. Given a small set of reasoning traces, we use coding agents to compile them into reusable symbolic program synthesizers over constrained DSLs. The resulting solvers require no LLM calls at test time and are strong standalone systems: symbolic solver ensembles reach 91.3% accuracy on PBEBench-Lite and 84.7% on PBEBench-Hard, outperforming LLMs with test-time scaling for the latter by +16.3 percentage points at zero LLM inference cost. They also complement LLM search, improving PBEBench-Hard accuracy from 68.4% to 85.8% while reducing reported token usage by 78%, and raising SLR-Bench hard-tier accuracy from 34.4% to 58.0% in a neuro-symbolic hybrid setting. Compared to directly using coding agents as per-instance solvers, induced solvers are substantially more Pareto-efficient, amortizing a small one-time construction cost over many zero-token executions. Finally, most solvers transfer zero-shot to a real historical linguistics task - predicting sound changes in natural language data - reaching 80.1% accuracy under ensembling and recovering some plausible linguistic rules. Together, these results show that reasoning traces can be compiled into reusable symbolic solvers that solve many tasks directly, complement LLM inference on hard cases, and provide a scalable route to domain-general solver induction. We release code and data for reproducibility.

Atharva Naik, Prakam, Darsh Agrawal et al. · cmu

Although many benchmarks evaluate the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domains such as mathematics, coding, or data wrangling, few abstract away from domain specifics to examine reasoning as a capability in and of itself. We contribute a novel type of benchmark evaluating the inductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs that is inspired by the forward reconstruction task from historical linguistics but is formulated in an extremely simple, general way (in the form of Programming by Examples). The task involves generating a cascade of simple string rewrite programs to transform a given list of input strings into a list of desired output strings. We present a fully automated pipeline that programmatically generates problems of this type with controllable difficulty, enabling scalable evaluation of reasoning models while avoiding contamination. Using this approach, we construct two benchmarks: PBEBench-Lite, which efficiently stratifies models of varying capabilities, and PBEBench, which requires models to induce programs similar in complexity to those constructed by historical linguists. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between models that leverage test-time compute or LCoT (long chain-of-thought) reasoning and those that do not. Moreover, although recent models show promise, the solve rate for both of them drops below 5% for hard instances of the PBEBench dataset (ground truth cascade lengths of 20 and 30, respectively), falling well short of realistic historical linguistics requirements even with computationally expensive, popular scaling techniques from the PBE and reasoning literature. Additionally, we also study the effectiveness of different scaling strategies and the impact of various hyperparameters on the difficulty of the generated data using gpt-oss-120b, the best-performing open-source model.