As a core cognitive skill that enables the transferability of information across domains, analogical reasoning has been extensively studied for both humans and computational models. However, while cognitive theories of analogy often focus on narratives and study the distinction between surface, relational, and system similarities, existing work in natural language processing has a narrower focus as far as relational analogies between word pairs. This gap brings a natural question: can state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) detect system analogies between narratives? To gain insight into this question and extend word-based relational analogies to relational system analogies, we devise a comprehensive computational framework that operationalizes dominant theories of analogy, using narrative elements to create surface and system mappings. Leveraging the interplay between these mappings, we create a binary task and benchmark for Analogical Reasoning on Narratives (ARN), covering four categories of far (cross-domain)/near (within-domain) analogies and disanalogies. We show that while all LLMs can largely recognize near analogies, even the largest ones struggle with far analogies in a zero-shot setting, with GPT4.0 scoring below random. Guiding the models through solved examples and Chain-of-Thought reasoning enhances their analogical reasoning ability. Yet, since even in the few-shot setting, the best model only performs halfway between random and humans, ARN opens exciting directions for computational analogical reasoners.

Downstream applications often require text classification models to be accurate and robust. While the accuracy of state-of-the-art Language Models (LMs) approximates human performance, they often exhibit a drop in performance on real-world noisy data. This lack of robustness can be concerning, as even small perturbations in text, irrelevant to the target task, can cause classifiers to incorrectly change their predictions. A potential solution can be the family of Prototype-Based Networks (PBNs) that classifies examples based on their similarity to prototypical examples of a class (prototypes) and has been shown to be robust to noise for computer vision tasks. In this paper, we study whether the robustness properties of PBNs transfer to text classification tasks under both targeted and static adversarial attack settings. Our results show that PBNs, as a mere architectural variation of vanilla LMs, offer more robustness compared to vanilla LMs under both targeted and static settings. We showcase how PBNs’ interpretability can help us understand PBNs’ robustness properties. Finally, our ablation studies reveal the sensitivity of PBNs’ robustness to the strictness of clustering and the number of prototypes in the training phase, as tighter clustering and a low number of prototypes result in less robust PBNs.

Automatic assessment of the quality of arguments has been recognized as a challenging task with significant implications for misinformation and targeted speech. While real-world arguments are tightly anchored in context, existing computational methods analyze their quality in isolation, which affects their accuracy and generalizability. We propose SPARK: a novel method for scoring argument quality based on contextualization via relevant knowledge. We devise four augmentations that leverage large language models to provide feedback, infer hidden assumptions, supply a similar-quality argument, or give a counter-argument. SPARK uses a dual-encoder Transformer architecture to enable the original argument and its augmentation to be considered jointly. Our experiments in both in-domain and zero-shot setups show that SPARK consistently outperforms existing techniques across multiple metrics

The success of language models has inspired the NLP community to attend to tasks that require implicit and complex reasoning, relying on human-like commonsense mechanisms. While such vertical thinking tasks have been relatively popular, lateral thinking puzzles have received little attention. To bridge this gap, we devise BrainTeaser: a multiple-choice Question Answering task designed to test the model’s ability to exhibit lateral thinking and defy default commonsense associations. We design a three-step procedure for creating the first lateral thinking benchmark, consisting of data collection, distractor generation, and generation of adversarial examples, leading to 1,100 puzzles with high-quality annotations. To assess the consistency of lateral reasoning by models, we enrich BrainTeaser based on a semantic and contextual reconstruction of its questions. Our experiments with state-of-the-art instruction- and commonsense language models reveal a significant gap between human and model performance, which is further widened when consistency across adversarial formats is considered. We make all of our code and data available to stimulate work on developing and evaluating lateral thinking models.