More Like this

1. Juror Scientific Reasoning Skills and Discussion of Scientific Evidence During Deliberation

   McCowan, K. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract We investigate the link between individual differences in science reasoning skills and mock jurors’ deliberation behavior; specifically, how much they talk about the scientific evidence presented in a complicated, ecologically valid case during deliberation. Consistent with our preregistered hypothesis, mock jurors strong in scientific reasoning discussed the scientific evidence more during deliberation than those with weaker science reasoning skills. Summary With increasing frequency, legal disputes involve complex scientific information (Faigman et al., 2014; Federal Judicial Center, 2011; National Research Council, 2009). Yet people often have trouble consuming scientific information effectively (McAuliff et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2014; Resnick et al., 2016). Individual differences in reasoning styles and skills can affect how people comprehend complex evidence (e.g., Hans, Kaye, Dann, Farley, Alberston, 2011; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008). Recently, scholars have highlighted the importance of studying group deliberation contexts as well as individual decision contexts (Salerno & Diamond, 2010; Kovera, 2017). If individual differences influence how jurors understand scientific evidence, it invites questions about how these individual differences may affect the way jurors discuss science during group deliberations. The purpose of the current study was to examine how individual differences in the way people process scientific information affects the extent to which jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberations. Methods We preregistered the data collection plan, sample size, and hypotheses on the Open Science Framework. Jury-eligible community participants (303 jurors across 50 juries) from Phoenix, AZ (Mage=37.4, SD=16.9; 58.8% female; 51.5% White, 23.7% Latinx, 9.9% African-American, 4.3% Asian) were paid $55 for a 3-hour mock jury study. Participants completed a set of individual questionnaires related to science reasoning skills and attitudes toward science prior to watching a 45-minute mock armed-robbery trial. The trial included various pieces of evidence and testimony, including forensic experts testifying about mitochondrial DNA evidence (mtDNA; based on Hans et al. 2011 materials). Participants were then given 45 minutes to deliberate. The deliberations were video recorded and transcribed to text for analysis. We analyzed the deliberation content for discussions related to the scientific evidence presented during trial. We hypothesized that those with stronger scientific and numeric reasoning skills, higher need for cognition, and more positive views towards science would discuss scientific evidence more than their counterparts during deliberation. Measures We measured Attitudes Toward Science (ATS) with indices of scientific promise and scientific reservations (Hans et al., 2011; originally developed by the National Science Board, 2004; 2006). We used Drummond and Fischhoff’s (2015) Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) to measure scientific reasoning skills. Weller et al.’s (2012) Numeracy Scale (WNS) measured proficiency in reasoning with quantitative information. The NFC-Short Form (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measured need for cognition. Coding We identified verbal utterances related to the scientific evidence presented in court. For instance, references to DNA evidence in general (e.g. nuclear DNA being more conclusive than mtDNA), the database that was used to compare the DNA sample (e.g. the database size, how representative it was), exclusion rates (e.g. how many other people could not be excluded as a possible match), and the forensic DNA experts (e.g. how credible they were perceived). We used word count to operationalize the extent to which each juror discussed scientific information. First we calculated the total word count for each complete jury deliberation transcript. Based on the above coding scheme we determined the number of words each juror spent discussing scientific information. To compare across juries, we wanted to account for the differing length of deliberation; thus, we calculated each juror’s scientific deliberation word count as a proportion of their jury’s total word count. Results On average, jurors discussed the science for about 4% of their total deliberation (SD=4%, range 0-22%). We regressed proportion of the deliberation jurors spend discussing scientific information on the four individual difference measures (i.e., SRS, NFC, WNS, ATS). Using the adjusted R-squared, the measures significantly accounted for 5.5% of the variability in scientific information deliberation discussion, SE=0.04, F(4, 199)=3.93, p=0.004. When controlling for all other variables in the model, the Scientific Reasoning Scale was the only measure that remained significant, b=0.003, SE=0.001, t(203)=2.02, p=0.045. To analyze how much variability each measure accounted for, we performed a stepwise regression, with NFC entered at step 1, ATS entered at step 2, WNS entered at step 3, and SRS entered at step 4. At step 1, NFC accounted for 2.4% of the variability, F(1, 202)=5.95, p=0.02. At step 2, ATS did not significantly account for any additional variability. At step 3, WNS accounted for an additional 2.4% of variability, ΔF(1, 200)=5.02, p=0.03. Finally, at step 4, SRS significantly accounted for an additional 1.9% of variability in scientific information discussion, ΔF(1, 199)=4.06, p=0.045, total adjusted R-squared of 0.055. Discussion This study provides additional support for previous findings that scientific reasoning skills affect the way jurors comprehend and use scientific evidence. It expands on previous findings by suggesting that these individual differences also impact the way scientific evidence is discussed during juror deliberations. In addition, this study advances the literature by identifying Scientific Reasoning Skills as a potentially more robust explanatory individual differences variable than more well-studied constructs like Need for Cognition in jury research. Our next steps for this research, which we plan to present at AP-LS as part of this presentation, incudes further analysis of the deliberation content (e.g., not just the mention of, but the accuracy of the references to scientific evidence in discussion). We are currently coding this data with a software program called Noldus Observer XT, which will allow us to present more sophisticated results from this data during the presentation. Learning Objective: Participants will be able to describe how individual differences in scientific reasoning skills affect how much jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberation. 

   more » « less
2. Repurposing Entailment for Multi-Hop Question Answering Tasks

   Trivedi, Harsh ; Kwon, Heeyoung ; Khot, Tushar ; Sabharwal, Ashish ; Balasubramanian, Niranjan ( June 2019 , North {A}merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies)

   Question Answering (QA) naturally reduces to an entailment problem, namely, verifying whether some text entails the answer to a question. However, for multi-hop QA tasks, which require reasoning with \textit{multiple} sentences, it remains unclear how best to utilize entailment models pre-trained on large scale datasets such as SNLI, which are based on sentence pairs. We introduce Multee, a general architecture that can effectively use entailment models for multi-hop QA tasks. Multee uses (i) a local module that helps locate important sentences, thereby avoiding distracting information, and (ii) a global module that aggregates information by effectively incorporating importance weights. Importantly, we show that both modules can use entailment functions pre-trained on a large scale NLI datasets. We evaluate performance on MultiRC and OpenBookQA, two multihop QA datasets. When using an entailment function pre-trained on NLI datasets, Multee outperforms QA models trained only on the target QA datasets and the OpenAI transformer models. 

   more » « less
3. Multi-Step Reasoning Over Unstructured Text with Beam Dense Retrieval

   https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.368  

   Zhao, Chen ; Xiong, Chenyan ; Boyd-Graber, Jordan ; Daumé III, Hal ( January 2021 , Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies)

   Complex question answering often requires finding a reasoning chain that consists of multiple evidence pieces. Current approaches incorporate the strengths of structured knowledge and unstructured text, assuming text corpora is semi-structured. Building on dense retrieval methods, we propose a new multi-step retrieval approach (BEAMDR) that iteratively forms an evidence chain through beam search in dense representations. When evaluated on multi-hop question answering, BEAMDR is competitive to state-of-the-art systems, without using any semi-structured information. Through query composition in dense space, BEAMDR captures the implicit relationships between evidence in the reasoning chain. The code is available at https://github.com/ henryzhao5852/BeamDR. 

   more » « less
4. Dynamic prompt learning via policy gradient for semi-structured mathematical reasoning

   Lu, P. ; Qiu, L. ; Chang, K. W. ; Wu, Y. N. ; Zhu, S. C. ; Rajpurohit, T. ; Clark, K. ; Kalyan, A. ( May 2023 , International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023))

   Mathematical reasoning, a core ability of human intelligence, presents unique challenges for machines in abstract thinking and logical reasoning. Recent large pre-trained language models such as GPT-3 have achieved remarkable progress on mathematical reasoning tasks written in text form, such as math word problems (MWP). However, it is unknown if the models can handle more complex problems that involve math reasoning over heterogeneous information, such as tabular data. To fill the gap, we present Tabular Math Word Problems (TABMWP), a new dataset containing 38,431 open-domain grade-level problems that require mathematical reasoning on both textual and tabular data. Each question in TABMWP is aligned with a tabular context, which is presented as an image, semi-structured text, and a structured table. There are two types of questions: free-text and multi-choice, and each problem is annotated with gold solutions to reveal the multi-step reasoning process. We evaluate different pre-trained models on TABMWP, including the GPT-3 model in a few-shot setting. As earlier studies suggest, since few-shot GPT-3 relies on the selection of in-context examples, its performance is unstable and can degrade to near chance. The unstable issue is more severe when handling complex problems like TABMWP. To mitigate this, we further propose a novel approach, PROMPTPG, which utilizes policy gradient to learn to select in-context examples from a small amount of training data and then constructs the corresponding prompt for the test example. Experimental results show that our method outperforms the best baseline by 5.31% on the accuracy metric and reduces the prediction variance significantly compared to random selection, which verifies its effectiveness in selecting in-context examples. 

   more » « less
5. Leveraging Symbolic Knowledge Bases for Commonsense Natural Language Inference using Pattern Theory

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3287837  

   Aakur, Sathyanarayanan N. ; Sarkar, Sudeep ( June 2023 , IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence)

   The commonsense natural language inference (CNLI) tasks aim to select the most likely follow-up statement to a contextual description of ordinary, everyday events and facts. Current approaches to transfer learning of CNLI models across tasks require many labeled data from the new task. This paper presents a way to reduce this need for additional annotated training data from the new task by leveraging symbolic knowledge bases, such as ConceptNet. We formulate a teacher-student framework for mixed symbolic-neural reasoning, with the large-scale symbolic knowledge base serving as the teacher and a trained CNLI model as the student. This hybrid distillation process involves two steps. The first step is a symbolic reasoning process. Given a collection of unlabeled data, we use an abductive reasoning framework based on Grenander's pattern theory to create weakly labeled data. Pattern theory is an energy-based graphical probabilistic framework for reasoning among random variables with varying dependency structures. In the second step, the weakly labeled data, along with a fraction of the labeled data, is used to transfer-learn the CNLI model into the new task. The goal is to reduce the fraction of labeled data required. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach by using three publicly available datasets (OpenBookQA, SWAG, and HellaSWAG) and evaluating three CNLI models (BERT, LSTM, and ESIM) that represent different tasks. We show that, on average, we achieve 63% of the top performance of a fully supervised BERT model with no labeled data. With only 1000 labeled samples, we can improve this performance to 72%. Interestingly, without training, the teacher mechanism itself has significant inference power. The pattern theory framework achieves 32.7% accuracy on OpenBookQA, outperforming transformer-based models such as GPT (26.6%), GPT-2 (30.2%), and BERT (27.1%) by a significant margin. We demonstrate that the framework can be generalized to successfully train neural CNLI models using knowledge distillation under unsupervised and semi-supervised learning settings. Our results show that it outperforms all unsupervised and weakly supervised baselines and some early supervised approaches, while offering competitive performance with fully supervised baselines. Additionally, we show that the abductive learning framework can be adapted for other downstream tasks, such as unsupervised semantic textual similarity, unsupervised sentiment classification, and zero-shot text classification, without significant modification to the framework. Finally, user studies show that the generated interpretations enhance its explainability by providing key insights into its reasoning mechanism. 

   more » « less