CASE: Commonsense-Augmented Score with an Expanded Answer Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LLMs have demonstrated impressive zero-shot performance on NLP tasks thanks to the knowledge they acquired in their training. In multiple-choice QA tasks, the LM probabilities are used as an imperfect measure of the plausibility of each answer choice. One of the major limitations of the basic score is that it treats all words as equally important. We propose CASE, a Commonsense-Augmented Score with an Expanded Answer Space. CASE addresses this limitation by assigning importance weights for individual words based on their semantic relations to other words in the input. The dynamic weighting approach outperforms basic LM scores, not only because it reduces noise from unimportant words, but also because it informs the model of implicit commonsense knowledge that may be useful for answering the question. We then also follow prior work in expanding the answer space by generating lexically-divergent answers that are conceptually-similar to the choices. When combined with answer space expansion, our method outperforms strong baselines on 5 commonsense benchmarks. We further show these two approaches are complementary and may be especially beneficial when using smaller LMs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".