Publications

The phenomenon of sound symbolism, the non-arbitrary mapping between word sounds and meanings, has long been demonstrated through anecdotal experiments like Bouba Kiki, but rarely tested at scale. We present the first computational cross-linguistic analysis of sound symbolism in the semantic domain of size. We compile a typologically broad dataset of 810 adjectives (27 languages, 30 words each), each phonemically transcribed and validated with native-speaker audio. Using interpretable classifiers over bag-of-segment features, we find that phonological form predicts size semantics above chance even across unrelated languages, with both vowels and consonants contributing. To probe universality beyond genealogy, we train an adversarial scrubber that suppresses language identity while preserving size signal (also at family granularity). Language prediction averaged across languages and settings falls below chance while size prediction remains significantly above chance, indicating cross-family sound-symbolic bias. We release data, code, and diagnostic tools for future large-scale studies of iconicity.

Persona prompting is widely used to steer LLM agent behavior, yet the narrative framing of a task can matter more than the assigned persona. We isolate this effect through structural isomorphism, constructing three text-based investigation games that share the same action space, stage progression, and resource constraints while varying only task narrative: disease investigation, IT troubleshooting, and murder mystery. Across 1,890 sessions spanning 3 models and 10 personas, we identify narrative priors: systematic action tendencies activated by a task’s story framing, independent of its decision structure. Narrative priors explain 5–31× more behavioral variance than persona, are consistent across model architectures, and in two of three domains are negatively associated with task success. Persona effects that do transfer across narratives arise from behavioral anchors, persona descriptions whose language maps directly onto shared actions. Causal interventions confirm this: removing anchor words from a high-transfer persona reduces cross-narrative consistency by 95%. Our framework also generalizes to a held-out fourth narrative and yields a persona-selection method that improves cross-narrative transfer. These results suggest that LLM behavior that survives narrative changes should be grounded in concrete actions rather than abstract descriptions.

Neural language models trained on large crowdsourced corpora frequently exploit spurious surface patterns tied to target labels without true linguistic or causal relevance, boosting benchmark performance while failing on adversarial or out-of-distribution inputs. Existing approaches either require manual specification of the feature vocabulary or automate discovery only partially, leaving the gap between dataset-level correlation and model-level exploitation unaddressed. We present UNMASK, a fully automated pipeline that discovers, causally verifies, and mitigates spurious correlations in text classifiers without additional human annotation. Given unlabeled training examples, UNMASK generates candidate surface patterns as executable boolean expressions, filters them through a statistical validation protocol with independent replication, and establishes causal model dependence via verified counterfactual interventions. Causally confirmed features then serve as annotation-free group definitions for Deep Feature Reweighting, eliminating the group labels that standard DFR requires. Applied to BERT and RoBERTa trained on MNLI, our pipeline independently rediscovers established lexical-overlap and negation biases, verifying 9 of 10 features on BERT and 6 on RoBERTa, and improving HANS accuracy by up to 12.58 pp. On CivilComments-WILDS, programmatic groups match the 70.1% worst-group accuracy of hand-labeled DFR (Kirichenko et al., 2023) without demographic annotation. We further demonstrate that the discovery and validation stages generalize to reward model preference data, surfacing interpretable spurious correlations in RewardBench2.

Natural-language explanations are widely used to interpret machine learning models, yet many prioritize human plausibility over accurately reflecting or predicting model behavior. Prior approaches often rely on human-written rationales, producing post-hoc explanations that neither align with the model’s decision function nor generalize. We introduce OPeX, a natural-language explanation model that directly optimizes for behavioral faithfulness: the ability of an explanation to reflect and predict a model’s observable input–output behavior. OPeX is trained using reinforcement learning with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), optimizing two complementary metrics: recoverability, which measures whether explanations recover model predictions on seen examples, and simulatability, which measures prediction of model behavior on unseen inputs. Across structured and text-based tasks, OPeX achieves high simulatability (~0.85) and recoverability (~0.99), outperforming GPT-4o, LLaMA-3.3-70B, and human-written explanations; despite having an 8B-parameter backbone. Human user studies show a 15% improvement in classification accuracy over competent baselines.

Recent work, using the Biasing Features metric, labels a CoT as unfaithful if it omits a prompt-injected hint that affected the prediction. We argue this metric adopts a narrow notion of faithfulness and confuses unfaithfulness with incompleteness, the lossy compression needed to turn distributed transformer computation into a linear natural language narrative. On multi-hop reasoning tasks with instruct-tuned and reasoning models, many CoTs flagged as unfaithful by Biasing Features are judged faithful by other metrics, exceeding 50% in some models. With a new faithful@k metric, we show that larger inference-time budgets greatly increase hint verbalization (up to 90% in some settings), suggesting much apparent unfaithfulness is due to tight token limits.

Existing deception datasets label completed outputs as honest or deceptive, treating deception as a property of the final response rather than a function of the model's reasoning trace. This obscures a more fundamental question: when does a language model become committed to deception? We introduce counterfactual localization: for each sentence prefix in a reasoning trace, we fix the prefix, resample continuations, and estimate the probability of a deceptive outcome. To scale this, we construct five environments (spanning strategic bluffing, maze guidance, financial advice, used-car sales, and offer negotiation) in which deception is never prompted but emerges from strategic incentives and labels follow mechanically from environment state rather than subjective human judgment. The resulting corpus localizes ~1.46M sentences across four reasoning models, drawn from over 94.1M sampled continuations, 91.5B generated tokens, and over 100K scenarios. Sentence-level human evaluation confirms that detected commitment points correspond to interpretable shifts in decision state. Using this resource, we show that lexical cues for commitment prediction transfer poorly across environments, whereas attention-based transition features generalize out of distribution, suggesting that deceptive commitment is reflected in reusable changes in reasoning dynamics rather than surface form. We further identify compact attention-head sets (under 10% of heads) that, selected on one environment, causally suppress deceptive commitment across held-out environments. We release the corpus as a substrate for studying deception, and more broadly commitment, in language-model reasoning.

Current image immunization defense techniques against diffusion-based editing embed imperceptible noise into target images to disrupt editing models. However, these methods face scalability challenges, as they require time-consuming optimization for each image separately, taking hours for small batches. To address these challenges, we introduce DiffVax, a scalable, lightweight, and optimization-free framework for image immunization, specifically designed to prevent diffusion-based editing. Our approach enables effective generalization to unseen content, reducing computational costs and cutting immunization time from days to milliseconds, achieving a speedup of 250,000x. This is achieved through a loss term that ensures the failure of editing attempts and the imperceptibility of the perturbations. Extensive qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate that our model is scalable, optimization-free, adaptable to various diffusion-based editing tools, robust against counter-attacks, and, for the first time, effectively protects video content from editing.

As large language models (LLMs) integrate into society, their ability to adapt to users is as critical as their accuracy. While prior work has used personality tests to examine the perceived personalities of LLMs, little research has explored whether LLMs adapt their perceived personalities in response to user interactions. We investigate whether and how LLMs exhibit conversational adaptations over prolonged interactions. Using controlled simulations where a user and chatbot engage in dialogue, we measure the chatbot’s perceived personality shifts before and after the conversation. Across multiple models, we find that traits such as Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness are highly susceptible to user influence, whereas Emotional Stability and Intellect remain relatively more stable. Our results suggest that LLMs dynamically adjust their conversational style in response to user personas, raising important implications for model alignment, trust, and safety

With the growing adoption of machine learning models in critical domains, techniques for explaining differences between models have become essential for trust, debugging, and informed deployment. Previous approaches address this by identifying input transformations that cause divergent predictions (Shah et al., 2022) or by learning joint surrogate models to align and contrast behaviors (Haldar et al., 2023). These methods often require access to training data and do not produce natural language explanations. In this paper, we introduce SLED , a framework that generates faithful natural language explanations of when and how two ML models converge or diverge in their predictions. SLED first uses gradient-based optimization to synthesize input samples that highlight divergence and convergence patterns, and then leverages a large language model (LLM) to generate explanations grounded in these synthetic samples. Across both text-based (3 tasks, 7 models) and structured (10 tasks, 4 models) classification tasks, we show that SLED explanations are 18–24% more faithful than the strongest baselines. User studies also indicate that SLED explanations achieve a real-world simulatability of 63.5%. Importantly, SLED requires minimal access to training data and generalizes well to real-world samples, enabling transparent model comparison.

Large language models are reshaping the norms of human communication, sometimes decoupling words from genuine human thought. This transformation is deep, and undermines norms historically tied to authorship of text. We draw from linguistic philosophy and AI ethics to detail how large-scale text generation can induce semantic drift, erode accountability, and obfuscate intent and authorship. Our work here introduces hybrid authorship graphs (modeling humans, LLMs, and texts in a provenance network), epistemic doppelgängers (LLM-generated texts that are indistinguishable from human-authored texts), and authorship entropy. We explore mechanisms such as 'proof-of-interaction' authorship verification and educational reforms to restore confidence in language. LLMs' benefits (broader access, increased fluency, automation, etc.) are undeniable, but the upheavals they introduce to the linguistic landscape demand reckoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural language explanations as an alternative to feature attribution methods for model interpretability. However, despite their plausibility, they may not reflect the model’s true reasoning faithfully. While several faithfulness metrics have been proposed, they are often evaluated in isolation, making principled comparisons between them difficult. We present CAUSAL DIAGNOSTICITY, a testbed framework for evaluating faithfulness metrics for natural language explanations. We use the concept of diagnosticity, and employ model-editing methods to generate faithful-unfaithful explanation pairs. Our benchmark includes four tasks: fact-checking, analogy, object counting, and multi-hop reasoning. We evaluate prominent faithfulness metrics, including post-hoc explanation and chainof-thought methods. Diagnostic performance varies across tasks and models, with Filler Tokens performing best overall. Additionally, continuous metrics are generally more diagnostic than binary ones but can be sensitive to noise and model choice. Our results highlight the need for more robust faithfulness metrics.

Often when we interact with a first-person account of events, we consider whether or not the narrator, the primary speaker of the text, is reliable. In this paper, we propose using computational methods to identify unreliable narrators, i.e. those who unintentionally misrepresent information. Borrowing literary theory from narratology to define different types of unreliable narrators based on a variety of textual phenomena, we present TUNa, a human-annotated dataset of narratives from multiple domains, including blog posts, subreddit posts, hotel reviews, and works of literature. We define classification tasks for intra-narrational, inter-narrational, and inter-textual unreliabilities and analyze the performance of popular open-weight and proprietary LLMs for each. We propose learning from literature to perform unreliable narrator classification on real-world text data. To this end, we experiment with few-shot, fine-tuning, and curriculum learning settings. Our results show that this task is very challenging, and there is potential for using LLMs to identify unreliable narrators. We release our expert-annotated dataset and code at https://github.com/adbrei/unreliable-narrators and invite future research in this area.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering questions but remain passive learners—absorbing static data without the ability to question and refine knowledge. This paper explores how LLMs can transition to interactive, question-driven learning through studentteacher dialogues. We introduce INTERACT (INTERactive learning for Adaptive Concept Transfer), a framework in which a “student” LLM engages a “teacher” LLM through iterative inquiries to acquire knowledge across 1,347 contexts, including song lyrics, news articles, movie plots, academic papers, and images. Our experiments show that across a wide range of scenarios and LLM architectures, interactive learning consistently enhances performance, achieving up to a 25% improvement, with ‘cold-start’ student models matching static learning baselines in as few as five dialogue turns. Interactive setups can also mitigate the disadvantages of weaker teachers, showcasing the robustness of question-driven learning

Large language models struggle to align with human social norms, particularly when evaluating social acceptability in everyday situations. SOCIALGAZE is a multi-step prompting framework that improves LLMs' reasoning by encouraging them to verbalize social scenarios from multiple perspectives before making judgments. Experiments on social conflict narratives from the r/AITA subreddit show that SOCIALGAZE improves model alignment with human judgments by up to 11 F1 points. The study also uncovers several interesting biases in LLM social acceptability judgments -- for example, women are much less likely than men to be called out on r/AITA.

Model fusion aims to aggregate the knowledge of multiple models to enhance performance by combining their weights. In this work, we study the inverse problem -- investigating whether model fusion can reduce unwanted knowledge. We investigate the effects of model fusion in three scenarios -- the learning of shortcuts, social biases, and memorization of training data in fine-tuned language models. Through experiments covering classification and generation, we show that shared knowledge among models is enhanced during model fusion, while unshared knowledge is forgotten. Based on this, we show that model fusion can be a debiasing tool and showcase its efficacy in addressing privacy concerns with language models.

Machine learning classifiers often exhibit systematic biases due to dataset artifacts or class imbalances. DISCERN is a framework that generates natural language explanations for these biases, using an interactive loop between two large language models—one that identifies error patterns and another that refines them. The explanations improve classifier debugging and can be used to augment training data through synthetic instances or active learning. DISCERN consistently improves classification accuracy and helps humans interpret systematic biases 25% more effectively than cluster-based methods.

Real-world domain experts (e.g., doctors) rarely annotate only a decision label in their day-to-day workflow without providing explanations. Yet, existing low-resource learning techniques, such as Active Learning (AL), that aim to support human annotators mostly focus on the label while neglecting the natural language explanation of a data point. This work proposes a novel AL architecture to support experts real-world need for label and explanation annotations in low-resource scenarios. Our AL architecture leverages an explanation-generation model to produce explanations guided by human explanations, a prediction model that utilizes generated explanations toward prediction faithfully, and a novel data diversity-based AL sampling strategy that benefits from the explanation annotations. Automated and human evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating explanations into AL sampling and the improved human annotation efficiency and trustworthiness with our AL architecture. Additional ablation studies illustrate the potential of our AL architecture for transfer learning, generalizability, and integration with large language models (LLMs). While LLMs exhibit exceptional explanation-generation capabilities for relatively simple tasks, their effectiveness in complex real-world tasks warrants further in-depth study.

Recent approaches have explored language-guided classifiers capable of classifying examples from novel tasks when provided with task-specific natural language explanations, instructions or prompts (Sanh et al., 2022; R. Menon et al., 2022). While these classifiers can generalize in zero-shot settings, their task performance often varies substantially between different language explanations in unpredictable ways (Lu et al., 2022; Gonen et al., 2022). Also, current approaches fail to leverage unlabeled examples that may be available in many scenarios. Here, we introduce TALC, a framework that uses data programming to adapt a language-guided classifier for a new task during inference when provided with explanations from multiple teachers and unlabeled test examples. Our results show that TALC consistently outperforms a competitive baseline from prior work by an impressive 9.3% (relative improvement). Further, we demonstrate the robustness of TALC to variations in the quality and quantity of provided explanations, highlighting its potential in scenarios where learning from multiple teachers or a crowd is involved.

Generalized quantifiers (e.g., few, most) are used to indicate the proportions predicates are satisfied (for example, some apples are red). One way to interpret quantifier semantics is to explicitly bind these satisfactions with percentage scopes (e.g., 30%-40% of apples are red). This approach can be helpful for tasks like logic formalization and surface-form quantitative reasoning (Gordon and Schubert, 2010; Roy et al., 2015). However, it remains unclear if recent foundation models possess this ability, as they lack direct training signals. To explore this, we introduce QuRe, a crowd-sourced dataset of human-annotated generalized quantifiers in Wikipedia sentences featuring percentage-equipped predicates. We explore quantifier comprehension in language models using PRESQUE, a framework that combines natural language inference and the Rational Speech Acts framework. Experimental results on the HVD dataset and QuRe illustrate that PRESQUE, employing pragmatic reasoning, performs 20% better than a literal reasoning baseline when predicting quantifier percentage scopes, with no additional training required.

In this work, we explore the question of whether the perceived personality in language models is exhibited consistently in their language generation. For example, is a language model such as GPT2 likely to respond in a consistent way if asked to go out to a party? We also investigate whether such personality traits can be controlled. We show that when provided different types of contexts (such as personality descriptions, or answers to diagnostic questions about personality traits), language models such as BERT and GPT2 can consistently identify and reflect personality markers in those contexts. This behavior illustrates an ability to be manipulated in a highly predictable way, and frames them as tools for identifying personality traits and controlling personas in applications such as dialog systems. We also contribute a crowd-sourced data-set of personality descriptions of human subjects paired with their Big Five personality assessment data, and a data-set of personality descriptions collated from Reddit.

Understanding the internal reasoning behind the predictions of machine learning systems is increasingly vital, given their rising adoption and acceptance. While previous approaches, such as LIME, generate algorithmic explanations by attributing importance to input features for individual examples, recent research indicates that practitioners prefer examining language explanations that explain sub-groups of examples (Lakkaraju et al., 2022). In this paper, we introduce MaNtLE, a model-agnostic natural language explainer that analyzes multiple classifier predictions and generates faithful natural language explanations of classifier rationale for structured classification tasks. MaNtLE uses multi-task training on thousands of synthetic classification tasks to generate faithful explanations. Simulated user studies indicate that, on average, MaNtLE-generated explanations are at least 11% more faithful compared to LIME and Anchors explanations across three tasks. Human evaluations demonstrate that users can better predict model behavior using explanations from MaNtLE compared to other techniques.

A hallmark of human intelligence is the ability to learn new concepts purely from language. Several recent approaches have explored training machine learning models via natural language supervision. However, these approaches fall short in leveraging linguistic quantifiers (such as 'always' or 'rarely') and mimicking humans in compositionally learning complex tasks. Here, we present LaSQuE, a method that can learn zero-shot classifiers from language explanations by using three new strategies - (1) modeling the semantics of linguistic quantifiers in explanations (including exploiting ordinal strength relationships, such as 'always’ > ‘likely’), (2) aggregating information from multiple explanations using an attention-based mechanism, and (3) model training via curriculum learning

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI’s GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters.

In this paper, we investigate if pre-training on text also confers these models with helpful `inductive biases' for non-linguistic reasoning. On a set of 19 diverse non-linguistic tasks involving quantitative computations, recognizing regular expressions and reasoning over strings. We find that pretrained models significantly outper- form comparable non-pretrained neural mod- els. This remains true also in experiments with training non-pretrained models with fewer pa- rameters to account for model regularization effects.

Transformer-based models have shown promising performance in numerous NLP tasks. However, recent work has shown the limitation of such models in showing compositional generalization, which requires models to generalize to novel compositions of known concepts. In this work, we explore two strategies for compositional generalization on the task of kinship prediction from stories,(1) data augmentation and (2) predicting and using intermediate structured representation (in form of kinship graphs). Our experiments show that data augmentation boosts generalization performance by around 20% on average relative to a baseline model from prior work not using these strategies. However, predicting and using intermediate kinship graphs leads to a deterioration in the generalization of kinship prediction by around 50% on average relative to models that only leverage data augmentation.

Our experiments show that it is possible to predict both difficulty and discrimination parameters for new questions, and these traits are correlated with features of questions, answers, and associated contexts. Our findings can have significant implications for the creation of new datasets and tests on the one hand and strategies such as active learning and curriculum learning on the other.

ePiC is a crowdsourced dataset of narratives for employing proverbs in context as a benchmark for abstract language understanding. The dataset provides fine-grained annotation of aligned spans between proverbs and narratives, and contains minimal lexical overlaps between narratives and proverbs, ensuring that models need to go beyond surface-level reasoning to succeed. The dataset is accompanied by three tasks : (1) proverb recommendation and alignment prediction, (2) narrative generation for a given proverb and topic, and (3) identifying narratives with similar motifs.

Supervised learning has traditionally focused on inductive learning by observing labeled examples of a task. In contrast, humans have the ability to learn new concepts from language. Here, we explore learning zero-shot classifiers for structured data purely from language from natural language explanations as supervision. For this, we introduce CLUES, a benchmark consisting of a range of classification tasks over structured data along with natural language supervision in the form of explanations.

Online forums such as ChangeMyView have been explored to research aspects of persuasion and argumentative quality in language. While previous research has focused on arguments between a view-holder and a persuader, we explore the premise that apart from the merits of arguments, persuasion is influenced by the ambient social community. We hypothesize that comments from the rest of the community can either affirm the original view or implicitly exert pressure to change it. We develop a structured model to capture the ambient community’s sentiment towards the discussion and its effect on persuasion. Our experiments show that social features themselves are significantly predictive of persuasion (even without looking at the actual content of discussion), with performance comparable to some earlier approaches that use content features. Combining community and content features leads to overall performance of 78.5% on the persuasion prediction task. Our analyses suggest that the effect of social pressure is comparable to the difference between persuasive and non-persuasive language strategies in driving persuasion and that social pressure might be a causal factor for persuasion.

Mapping natural language instructions to programs that computers can process is a fundamental challenge. Existing approaches focus on likelihood-based training or using reinforcement learning to fine-tune models based on a single reward. In this paper, we pose program generation from language as Inverse Reinforcement Learning. We introduce several interpretable reward components and jointly learn (1) a reward function that linearly combines them, and (2) a policy for program generation. Fine-tuning with our approach achieves significantly better performance than competitive methods using Reinforcement Learning (RL). On the VirtualHome framework, we get improvements of up to 9.0% on the Longest Common Subsequence metric and 14.7% on recall-based metrics over previous work on this framework (Puig et al., 2018). The approach is data-efficient, showing larger gains in performance in the low-data regime. Generated programs are also preferred by human evaluators over an RL-based approach, and rated higher on relevance, completeness, and human-likeness.

Contextual representations learned by language models can often encode undesirable attributes, like demographic associations of the users, while being trained for an unrelated target task. We aim to scrub such undesirable attributes and learn fair representations while maintaining performance on the target task. In this paper, we present an adversarial learning framework 'Adversarial Scrubber' (ADS), to debias contextual representations. We perform theoretical analysis to show that our framework converges without leaking demographic information under certain conditions. We extend previous evaluation techniques by evaluating debiasing performance using Minimum Description Length (MDL) probing. Experimental evaluations on 8 datasets show that ADS generates representations with minimal information about demographic attributes while being maximally informative about the target task.

Pattern Exploiting Training (PET) is a recent approach that leverages patterns for few-shot learning. However, PET uses task-specific unlabeled data. In this paper, we focus on few shot learning without any unlabeled data and introduce ADAPET, which modifies PET’s objective to provide denser supervision during fine-tuning. As a result, ADAPET outperforms PET on SuperGLUE without any task-specific unlabeled data.

Existing approaches for the Table-to-Text task suffer from issues such as missing information, hallucination and repetition. Many approaches to this problem use Reinforcement Learning (RL), which maximizes a single manually defined reward, such as BLEU. In this work, we instead pose the Table-to-Text task as Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) problem. We explore using multiple interpretable unsupervised reward components that are combined linearly to form a composite reward function. The composite reward function and the description generator are learned jointly. We find that IRL outperforms strong RL baselines marginally. We further study the generalization of learned IRL rewards in scenarios involving domain adaptation. Our experiments reveal significant challenges in using IRL for this task.

Recent work by Clark et al. (2020) shows that transformers can act as 'soft theorem provers' by answering questions over explicitly provided knowledge in natural language. In our work, we take a step closer to emulating formal theorem provers, by proposing PROVER, an interpretable transformer-based model that jointly answers binary questions over rule-bases and generates the corresponding proofs. Our model learns to predict nodes and edges corresponding to proof graphs in an efficient constrained training paradigm. During inference, a valid proof, satisfying a set of global constraints is generated. We conduct experiments on synthetic, hand-authored, and human-paraphrased rule-bases to show promising results for QA and proof generation, with strong generalization performance. First, PROVER generates proofs with an accuracy of 87%, while retaining or improving performance on the QA task, compared to RuleTakers (up to 6% improvement on zero-shot evaluation). Second, when trained on questions requiring lower depths of reasoning, it generalizes significantly better to higher depths (up to 15% improvement). Third, PROVER obtains near perfect QA accuracy of 98% using only 40% of the training data. However, generating proofs for questions requiring higher depths of reasoning becomes challenging, and the accuracy drops to 65% for 'depth 5', indicating significant scope for future work.

We explore learning web-based tasks from a human teacher through natural language explanations and a single demonstration. Our approach investigates a new direction for semantic parsing that models explaining a demonstration in a context, rather than mapping explanations to demonstrations. By leveraging the idea of inverse semantics from program synthesis to reason backwards from observed demonstrations, we ensure that all considered interpretations are consistent with executable actions in any context, thus simplifying the problem of search over logical forms. We present a dataset of explanations paired with demonstrations for web-based tasks. Our methods show better task completion rates than a supervised semantic parsing baseline (40% relative improvement on average), and are competitive with simple exploration-and-demonstration based methods, while requiring no exploration of the environment. In learning to align explanations with demonstrations, basic properties of natural language syntax emerge as learned behavior. This is an interesting example of pragmatic language acquisition without any linguistic annotation.

Natural language has recently been explored as a new medium of supervision for training machine learning models. Here, we explore learning classification tasks using language in a conversational setting – where the automated learner does not simply receive language input from a teacher, but can proactively engage the teacher by asking questions. We present a reinforcement learning framework, where the learner’s actions correspond to question types and the reward for asking a question is based on how the teacher’s response changes performance of the resulting machine learning model on the learning task. In this framework, learning good question-asking strategies corresponds to asking sequences of questions that maximize the cumulative (discounted) reward, and hence quickly lead to effective classifiers. Empirical analysis across three domains shows that learned question-asking strategies expedite classifier training by asking appropriate questions at different points in the learning process. The approach allows learning classifiers from a blend of strategies, including learning from observations, explanations and clarifications.