Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Zhang, C E

Building Machines that Learn and Think with People

Authors: Katherine M. Collins, Ilia Sucholutsky, Umang Bhatt, Kartik Chandra, Lionel Wong, Mina Lee, Cedegao E. Zhang, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Mark Ho, Vikash Mansinghka, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Thomas L. Griffiths

Abstract: What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to… ▽ More What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ``thought partners,'' systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and AI thought partners can engage and propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world. △ Less

Submitted 21 July, 2024; originally announced August 2024.

People use fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about novel games

Authors: Cedegao E. Zhang, Katherine M. Collins, Lionel Wong, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum

Abstract: We can evaluate features of problems and their potential solutions well before we can effectively solve them. When considering a game we have never played, for instance, we might infer whether it is likely to be challenging, fair, or fun simply from hearing the game rules, prior to deciding whether to invest time in learning the game or trying to play it well. Many studies of game play have focuse… ▽ More We can evaluate features of problems and their potential solutions well before we can effectively solve them. When considering a game we have never played, for instance, we might infer whether it is likely to be challenging, fair, or fun simply from hearing the game rules, prior to deciding whether to invest time in learning the game or trying to play it well. Many studies of game play have focused on optimality and expertise, characterizing how people and computational models play based on moderate to extensive search and after playing a game dozens (if not thousands or millions) of times. Here, we study how people reason about a range of simple but novel connect-n style board games. We ask people to judge how fair and how fun the games are from very little experience: just thinking about the game for a minute or so, before they have ever actually played with anyone else, and we propose a resource-limited model that captures their judgments using only a small number of partial game simulations and almost no lookahead search. △ Less

Submitted 19 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Comments: Accepted at CogSci 2024 as a talk

Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Authors: Wesley H. Holliday, Matthew Mandelkern, Cedegao E. Zhang

Abstract: The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) are the topic of a growing body of research in AI and cognitive science. In this paper, we probe the extent to which twenty-five LLMs are able to distinguish logically correct inferences from logically fallacious ones. We focus on inference patterns involving conditionals (e.g., 'If Ann has a queen, then Bob has a jack') and epistemic modals… ▽ More The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) are the topic of a growing body of research in AI and cognitive science. In this paper, we probe the extent to which twenty-five LLMs are able to distinguish logically correct inferences from logically fallacious ones. We focus on inference patterns involving conditionals (e.g., 'If Ann has a queen, then Bob has a jack') and epistemic modals (e.g., 'Ann might have an ace', 'Bob must have a king'). These inferences have been of special interest to logicians, philosophers, and linguists, since they play a central role in the fundamental human ability to reason about distal possibilities. Assessing LLMs on these inferences is thus highly relevant to the question of how much the reasoning abilities of LLMs match those of humans. Among the LLMs we tested, all but the GPT-4 model family often make basic mistakes with conditionals, though zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting helps them make fewer mistakes. Moreover, even the GPT-4 family displays logically inconsistent judgments across inference patterns involving epistemic modals, and almost all models give answers to certain complex conditional inferences widely discussed in the literature that do not match human judgments. These results highlight gaps in basic logical reasoning in today's LLMs. △ Less

Submitted 4 July, 2024; v1 submitted 30 January, 2024; originally announced January 2024.

Comments: Updated version with results from 25 LLMs, additional few-shot and chain-of-thought prompts, additional inference patterns, and correlations with other benchmarks

MSC Class: 68T50; 03B65 ACM Class: I.2.7

LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers

Authors: Theo X. Olausson, Alex Gu, Benjamin Lipkin, Cedegao E. Zhang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Roger Levy

Abstract: Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing… ▽ More Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing in subtle and unpredictable ways. In this work, we investigate the validity of instead reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC: Logical Inference via Neurosymbolic Computation. In LINC, the LLM acts as a semantic parser, translating premises and conclusions from natural language to expressions in first-order logic. These expressions are then offloaded to an external theorem prover, which symbolically performs deductive inference. Leveraging this approach, we observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate. On ProofWriter, augmenting the comparatively small open-source StarCoder+ (15.5B parameters) with LINC even outperforms GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by an absolute 38% and 10%, respectively. When used with GPT-4, LINC scores 26% higher than CoT on ProofWriter while performing comparatively on FOLIO. Further analysis reveals that although both methods on average succeed roughly equally often on this dataset, they exhibit distinct and complementary failure modes. We thus provide promising evidence for how logical reasoning over natural language can be tackled through jointly leveraging LLMs alongside symbolic provers. All corresponding code is publicly available at https://github.com/benlipkin/linc △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2024; v1 submitted 23 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: EMNLP Main 2023 (Outstanding Paper Award)

Journal ref: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5153-5176, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

AI for Mathematics: A Cognitive Science Perspective

Authors: Cedegao E. Zhang, Katherine M. Collins, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum

Abstract: Mathematics is one of the most powerful conceptual systems developed and used by the human species. Dreams of automated mathematicians have a storied history in artificial intelligence (AI). Rapid progress in AI, particularly propelled by advances in large language models (LLMs), has sparked renewed, widespread interest in building such systems. In this work, we reflect on these goals from a \text… ▽ More Mathematics is one of the most powerful conceptual systems developed and used by the human species. Dreams of automated mathematicians have a storied history in artificial intelligence (AI). Rapid progress in AI, particularly propelled by advances in large language models (LLMs), has sparked renewed, widespread interest in building such systems. In this work, we reflect on these goals from a \textit{cognitive science} perspective. We call attention to several classical and ongoing research directions from cognitive science, which we believe are valuable for AI practitioners to consider when seeking to build truly human (or superhuman)-level mathematical systems. We close with open discussions and questions that we believe necessitate a multi-disciplinary perspective -- cognitive scientists working in tandem with AI researchers and mathematicians -- as we move toward better mathematical AI systems which not only help us push the frontier of the mathematics, but also offer glimpses into how we as humans are even capable of such great cognitive feats. △ Less

Submitted 18 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs

Authors: Lance Ying, Katherine M. Collins, Megan Wei, Cedegao E. Zhang, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Lionel Wong

Abstract: Human beings are social creatures. We routinely reason about other agents, and a crucial component of this social reasoning is inferring people's goals as we learn about their actions. In many settings, we can perform intuitive but reliable goal inference from language descriptions of agents, actions, and the background environments. In this paper, we study this process of language driving and inf… ▽ More Human beings are social creatures. We routinely reason about other agents, and a crucial component of this social reasoning is inferring people's goals as we learn about their actions. In many settings, we can perform intuitive but reliable goal inference from language descriptions of agents, actions, and the background environments. In this paper, we study this process of language driving and influencing social reasoning in a probabilistic goal inference domain. We propose a neuro-symbolic model that carries out goal inference from linguistic inputs of agent scenarios. The "neuro" part is a large language model (LLM) that translates language descriptions to code representations, and the "symbolic" part is a Bayesian inverse planning engine. To test our model, we design and run a human experiment on a linguistic goal inference task. Our model closely matches human response patterns and better predicts human judgements than using an LLM alone. △ Less

Submitted 27 June, 2023; v1 submitted 25 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: To appear at ICML Workshop on Theory of Mind in Communicating Agents