TY - GEN
T1 - CAT-BENCH
T2 - 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2024
AU - Lal, Yash Kumar
AU - Cohen, Vanya
AU - Chambers, Nathanael
AU - Balasubramanian, Niranjan
AU - Mooney, Raymond
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Association for Computational Linguistics.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Understanding the abilities of LLMs to reason about natural language plans, such as instructional text and recipes, is critical to reliably using them in decision-making systems.A fundamental aspect of plans is the temporal order in which their steps need to be executed, which reflects the underlying causal dependencies between them.We introduce CAT-BENCH, a benchmark of Step Order Prediction questions, which test whether a step must necessarily occur before or after another in cooking recipe plans.We use this to evaluate how well frontier LLMs understand causal and temporal dependencies.We find that SOTA LLMs are underwhelming (best zero-shot is only 0.59 in F1), and are biased towards predicting dependence more often, perhaps relying on temporal order of steps as a heuristic.While prompting for explanations and using few-shot examples improve performance, the best F1 result is only 0.73.Further, human evaluation of explanations along with answer correctness show that, on average, humans do not agree with model reasoning.Surprisingly, we also find that explaining after answering leads to better performance than normal chain-of-thought prompting, and LLM answers are not consistent across questions about the same step pairs.Overall, results show that LLMs' ability to detect dependence between steps has significant room for improvement.
AB - Understanding the abilities of LLMs to reason about natural language plans, such as instructional text and recipes, is critical to reliably using them in decision-making systems.A fundamental aspect of plans is the temporal order in which their steps need to be executed, which reflects the underlying causal dependencies between them.We introduce CAT-BENCH, a benchmark of Step Order Prediction questions, which test whether a step must necessarily occur before or after another in cooking recipe plans.We use this to evaluate how well frontier LLMs understand causal and temporal dependencies.We find that SOTA LLMs are underwhelming (best zero-shot is only 0.59 in F1), and are biased towards predicting dependence more often, perhaps relying on temporal order of steps as a heuristic.While prompting for explanations and using few-shot examples improve performance, the best F1 result is only 0.73.Further, human evaluation of explanations along with answer correctness show that, on average, humans do not agree with model reasoning.Surprisingly, we also find that explaining after answering leads to better performance than normal chain-of-thought prompting, and LLM answers are not consistent across questions about the same step pairs.Overall, results show that LLMs' ability to detect dependence between steps has significant room for improvement.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85213800210
U2 - 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.1077
DO - 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.1077
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85213800210
T3 - EMNLP 2024 - 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference
SP - 19336
EP - 19354
BT - EMNLP 2024 - 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference
A2 - Al-Onaizan, Yaser
A2 - Bansal, Mohit
A2 - Chen, Yun-Nung
PB - Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)
Y2 - 12 November 2024 through 16 November 2024
ER -