Answering Unseen Questions With Smaller Language Models Using Rationale Generation and Dense Retrieval

TL;DR

This paper enhances small language models' reasoning on unseen questions by combining rationales from larger models with dense retrieval, significantly improving accuracy across multiple datasets.

Contribution

Introduces two methods, Rationale Ranking and Retrieval-Augmented Training, to improve small models' reasoning by integrating generated rationales and retrieved context.

Findings

Significant accuracy improvements on multiple datasets.

Outperforms larger models in few-shot reasoning tasks.

Effective combination of rationales and retrieval enhances reasoning.

Abstract

When provided with sufficient explanatory context, smaller Language Models have been shown to exhibit strong reasoning ability on challenging short-answer question-answering tasks where the questions are unseen in training. We evaluate two methods for further improvement in this setting. Both methods focus on combining rationales generated by a larger Language Model with longer contexts created from a multi-hop dense retrieval system. The first method ($\textit{RR}$) involves training a Rationale Ranking model to score both generated rationales and retrieved contexts with respect to relevance and truthfulness. We then use the scores to derive combined contexts from both knowledge sources using a number of combinatory strategies. For the second method ($\textit{RATD}$) we utilise retrieval-augmented training datasets developed by Hartill et al. 2023 to train a smaller Reasoning model such that it becomes proficient at utilising relevant information from longer text sequences that may be only partially evidential and frequently contain many irrelevant sentences. We find that both methods significantly improve results. Our single best Reasoning model materially improves upon strong comparable prior baselines for unseen evaluation datasets (StrategyQA 58.9 $\rightarrow$ 61.7 acc., CommonsenseQA 63.6 $\rightarrow$ 72.7 acc., ARC-DA 31.6 $\rightarrow$ 52.1 F1, IIRC 25.5 $\rightarrow$ 27.3 F1) and a version utilising our prior knowledge of each type of question in selecting a context combination strategy does even better. Our proposed models also generally outperform direct prompts against much larger models (BLOOM 175B and StableVicuna 13B) in both few-shot chain-of-thought and standard few-shot settings.