Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning, positioning them as promising tools for supporting human problem-solving. However, what happens when their performance is affected by *misinformation*, i.e., incorrect inputs introduced by users due to oversights or gaps in knowledge? Such misinformation is prevalent in real-world interactions with LLMs, yet how it propagates within LLMs’ reasoning process remains underexplored. Focusing on mathematical reasoning, we present a comprehensive analysis of how misinformation affects intermediate reasoning steps and final answers. We also examine how effectively LLMs can correct misinformation when explicitly instructed to do so. Even with explicit instructions, LLMs succeed less than half the time in rectifyingmisinformation, despite possessing correct internal knowledge, leading to significant accuracy drops (10.02% – 72.20%), and the degradation holds with thinking models (4.30% – 19.97%). Further analysis shows that applying factual corrections early in the reasoning process most effectively reduces misinformation propagation, and fine-tuning on synthesized data with early-stage corrections significantly improves reasoning factuality. Our work offers a practical approach to mitigating misinformation propagation.

While pretrained language models (PLMs) have greatly improved text generation, they have also been known to produce unfaithful or inappropriate content. In contrast, classic template-based systems provide strong guarantees of faithfulness at the cost of fluency. We propose TempLM, which achieves the best of both worlds by distilling a PLM into a template-based generator. On the E2E and SynthBio data-to-text datasets, we show that TempLM is more faithful than the original PLM and is more fluent than prior template systems. Notably, on an out-of-domain evaluation, TempLM reduces a finetuned BART model’s unfaithfulness rate from 83% to 0%. In a human study, we find that TempLM’s templates substantially improve upon human-written ones in BERTScore.

We release a new benchmark for lexical substitution, the task of finding appropriate substitutes for a target word in a context. For writing, lexical substitution systems can assist humans by suggesting words that humans cannot easily think of. However, existing benchmarks depend on human recall as the only source of data, and therefore lack coverage of the substitutes that would be most helpful to humans. Furthermore, annotators often provide substitutes of low quality, which are not actually appropriate in the given context. We collect higher-coverage and higher-quality data by framing lexical substitution as a classification problem, guided by the intuition that it is easier for humans to judge the appropriateness of candidate substitutes than conjure them from memory. To this end, we use a context-free thesaurus to produce candidates and rely on human judgement to determine contextual appropriateness. Compared to the previous largest benchmark, our Swords benchmark has 3x as many substitutes per target word for the same level of quality, and its substitutes are 1.4x more appropriate (based on human judgement) for the same number of substitutes.

We present a simple approach for text infilling, the task of predicting missing spans of text at any position in a document. While infilling could enable rich functionality especially for writing assistance tools, more attention has been devoted to language modeling—a special case of infilling where text is predicted at the end of a document. In this paper, we aim to extend the capabilities of language models (LMs) to the more general task of infilling. To this end, we train (or fine tune) off-the-shelf LMs on sequences containing the concatenation of artificially-masked text and the text which was masked. We show that this approach, which we call infilling by language modeling, can enable LMs to infill entire sentences effectively on three different domains: short stories, scientific abstracts, and lyrics. Furthermore, we show that humans have difficulty identifying sentences infilled by our approach as machine-generated in the domain of short stories.