A Knowledge Hunting Framework for Common Sense Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce an automatic system that achieves state-of-the-art results on the Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC), a common sense reasoning task that requires diverse, complex forms of inference and knowledge. Our method uses a knowledge hunting module to gather text from the web, which serves as evidence for candidate problem resolutions. Given an input problem, our system generates relevant queries to send to a search engine, then extracts and classifies knowledge from the returned results and weighs them to make a resolution. Our approach improves F1 performance on the full WSC by 0.21 over the previous best and represents the first system to exceed 0.5 F1. We further demonstrate that the approach is competitive on the Choice of Plausible Alternatives (COPA) task, which suggests that it is generally applicable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".