Neural models command state-of-the-art performance across NLP tasks, including ones involving “reasoning”. Models claiming to reason about the evidence presented to them should attend to the correct parts of the input while avoiding spurious patterns therein, be self-consistent in their predictions across inputs, and be immune to biases derived from their pre-training in a nuanced, context- sensitive fashion. Do the prevalent *BERT- family of models do so? In this paper, we study this question using the problem of reasoning on tabular data. Tabular inputs are especially well-suited for the study—they admit systematic probes targeting the properties listed above. Our experiments demonstrate that a RoBERTa-based model, representative of the current state-of-the-art, fails at reasoning on the following counts: it (a) ignores relevant parts of the evidence, (b) is over- sensitive to annotation artifacts, and (c) relies on the knowledge encoded in the pre-trained language model rather than the evidence presented in its tabular inputs. Finally, through inoculation experiments, we show that fine- tuning the model on perturbed data does not help it overcome the above challenges.

Although current CCG supertaggers achieve high accuracy on the standard WSJ test set, few systems make use of the categories’ internal structure that will drive the syntactic derivation during parsing. The tagset is traditionally truncated, discarding the many rare and complex category types in the long tail. However, supertags are themselves trees. Rather than give up on rare tags, we investigate constructive models that account for their internal structure, including novel methods for tree-structured prediction. Our best tagger is capable of recovering a sizeable fraction of the long-tail supertags and even generates CCG categories that have never been seen in training, while approximating the prior state of the art in overall tag accuracy with fewer parameters. We further investigate how well different approaches generalize to out-of-domain evaluation sets.

This paper introduces the problem of predicting semantic relations expressed by prepositions and develops statistical learning models for predicting the relations, their arguments and the semantic types of the arguments. We define an inventory of 32 relations, building on the word sense disambiguation task for prepositions and collapsing related senses across prepositions. Given a preposition in a sentence, our computational task to jointly model the preposition relation and its arguments along with their semantic types, as a way to support the relation prediction. The annotated data, however, only provides labels for the relation label, and not the arguments and types. We address this by presenting two models for preposition relation labeling. Our generalization of latent structure SVM gives close to 90% accuracy on relation labeling. Further, by jointly predicting the relation, arguments, and their types along with preposition sense, we show that we can not only improve the relation accuracy, but also significantly improve sense prediction accuracy.