In everyday life, humans often plan their actions by following step-by-step instructions in the form of goal-oriented scripts. Previous work has exploited language models (LMs) to plan for abstract goals of stereotypical activities (e.g., “make a cake”), but leaves more specific goals with multi-facet constraints understudied (e.g., “make a cake for diabetics”). In this paper, we define the task of constrained language planning for the first time. We propose an over-generate-then-filter approach to improve large language models (LLMs) on this task, and use it to distill a novel constrained language planning dataset, Coscript, which consists of 55,000 scripts. Empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly improves the constrained language planning ability of LLMs, especially on constraint faithfulness. Furthermore, Coscript is demonstrated to be quite effective in endowing smaller LMs with constrained language planning ability.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely studied for their ability to store and utilize positive knowledge. However, negative knowledge, such as “lions don’t live in the ocean”, is also ubiquitous in the world but rarely mentioned explicitly in text. What do LLMs know about negative knowledge?This work examines the ability of LLMs on negative commonsense knowledge. We design a constrained keywords-to-sentence generation task (CG) and a Boolean question answering task (QA) to probe LLMs.Our experiments reveal that LLMs frequently fail to generate valid sentences grounded in negative commonsense knowledge, yet they can correctly answer polar yes-or-no questions. We term this phenomenon the belief conflict of LLMs.Our further analysis shows that statistical shortcuts and negation reporting bias from language modeling pre-training cause this conflict.

The ability to recognize analogies is fundamental to human cognition. Existing benchmarks to test word analogy do not reveal the underneath process of analogical reasoning of neural models. Holding the belief that models capable of reasoning should be right for the right reasons, we propose a first-of-its-kind Explainable Knowledge-intensive Analogical Reasoning benchmark (E-KAR). Our benchmark consists of 1,655 (in Chinese) and 1,251 (in English) problems sourced from the Civil Service Exams, which require intensive background knowledge to solve. More importantly, we design a free-text explanation scheme to explain whether an analogy should be drawn, and manually annotate them for each and every question and candidate answer. Empirical results suggest that this benchmark is very challenging for some state-of-the-art models for both explanation generation and analogical question answering tasks, which invites further research in this area.