Mathematical Reasoning via Self-supervised Skip-tree Training
Markus Norman Rabe, Dennis Lee, Kshitij Bansal, Christian Szegedy
Abstract
We demonstrate that self-supervised language modeling applied to mathematical formulas enables logical reasoning. To measure the logical reasoning abilities of language models, we formulate several evaluation (downstream) tasks, such as inferring types, suggesting missing assumptions, and completing equalities. For training language models for formal mathematics, we propose a novel skip-tree task. We find that models trained on the skip-tree task show surprisingly strong mathematical reasoning abilities, and outperform models trained on standard skipsequence tasks. We also analyze the models' ability to formulate new conjectures by measuring how often the predictions are provable and useful in other proofs. Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2021 Reasoning can refer to a wide range of abilities, and thus we measure the mathematical reasoning abilities of language models on a variety of tasks, including mechanical derivations, such as type inference, and also creative tasks, such as predicting under which assumptions a statement is true. As we want to study what reasoning capabilities can be acquired just through self-supervised training, we do not employ fine-tuning on these tasks. Instead, we designed the tasks to be syntactically similar to the training task, such that the language model may produce correct answers. An advantage of formal language compared to natural language is that we can attempt to automatically evaluate statements. That is, we can let our language models produce conjectures, which we then try to prove using the DeepHOL theorem prover (Bansal et al., 2019; 2020). Besides evaluating the provability of the produced statements, we go one step further and evaluate their usefulness, by measuring how many times they are used as premises in proofs of other theorems. Our contributions are as follows: 1. We show that self-supervised training on mathematical formulas alone leads to logical reasoning capabilities. 2. We introduce a new skip-tree training task that outperforms the state-of-the-art skip-sequence training. We also introduce several evaluation tasks that are subsumed by skip-tree training (i.e. predict a missing subexpression), but test specific logical reasoning abilities to make the performance of the models interpretable. 3. We suggest a way to create and evaluate mathematical conjectures using existing neural theorem provers. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, we review related work on language modeling and deep learning for mathematics in Section 2. Then, in Section 3 we discuss the source corpus of formal mathematical statements from which we generate our training data. In Section 4, we present the skip-tree training task, as well as several variations that we used in our ablation studies. We present the evaluation tasks in Section 5, discuss our experimental findings in Section 6, and conclude in Section 7. RELATED WORK Recently, we have seen a series of rapid improvements in language modeling stemming from better pretraining tasks (
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers19
- Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language ModelsAitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 2,039 citations
- Autoformalization with Large Language ModelsYuhuai Wu, Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Wenda Li, Markus N. Rabe et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 364 citations
- Memorizing TransformersYuhuai Wu, Markus Norman Rabe, DeLesley Hutchins, Christian SzegedyICLR 2022 · 231 citations
- Proof Artifact Co-Training for Theorem Proving with Language ModelsJesse Michael Han, Jason Rute, Yuhuai Wu, Edward W. Ayers et al.ICLR 2022 · 149 citations
- LEGO-Prover: Neural Theorem Proving with Growing LibrariesHaiming Wang, Huajian Xin, Chuanyang Zheng, Zhengying Liu et al.ICLR 2024 · 125 citations
Builds on5
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive SummarizationJingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, Peter J. LiuICML 2020 · 2,453 citations
- Deep Learning For Symbolic MathematicsGuillaume Lample, François ChartonICLR 2020 · 477 citations
- Global Relational Models of Source CodeVincent J. Hellendoorn, Charles Sutton, Rishabh Singh, Petros Maniatis et al.ICLR 2020 · 252 citations
- Teaching Temporal Logics to Neural NetworksChristopher Hahn, Frederik Schmitt, Jens U. Kreber, Markus Norman Rabe et al.ICLR 2021 · 78 citations
Related papers
- SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative PromptingXi Ye, Qiaochu Chen, Isil Dillig, Greg DurrettNeurIPS 2023 · 126 citations
- Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning ProcessTian Ye, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, Zeyuan Allen-ZhuICLR 2025 · 3 citations
- S^3cMath: Spontaneous Step-Level Self-Correction Makes Large Language Models Better Mathematical ReasonersYuchen Yan, Jin Jiang, Yang Liu, Yixin Cao et al.AAAI 2025 · 19 citations
- Empower Nested Boolean Logic via Self-Supervised Curriculum LearningHongqiu Wu, Linfeng Liu, Hai Zhao, Min ZhangEMNLP 2023 · 2 citations
- Towards a Mechanistic Interpretation of Multi-Step Reasoning Capabilities of Language ModelsYifan Hou, Jiaoda Li, Yu Fei, Alessandro Stolfo et al.EMNLP 2023 · 2 citations
