From Models to Microtheories: Distilling a Model's Topical Knowledge for Grounded Question Answering

Recent reasoning methods (e.g., chain-of-thought, entailment reasoning) help users understand how language models (LMs) answer a single question, but they do little to reveal the LM's overall understanding, or "theory," about the question's $\textit{topic}$, making it still hard to trust the model. Our goal is to materialize such theories - here called $\textit{microtheories}$ (a linguistic analog of logical microtheories) - as a set of sentences encapsulating an LM's core knowledge about a topic. These statements systematically work together to entail answers to a $\textit{set}$ of questions to both engender trust and improve performance. Our approach is to first populate a knowledge store with (model-generated) sentences that entail answers to training questions and then distill those down to a core microtheory that is concise, general, and non-redundant. We show that, when added to a general corpus (e.g., Wikipedia), microtheories can supply critical, topical information not necessarily present in the corpus, improving both a model's ability to ground its answers to verifiable knowledge (i.e., show how answers are systematically entailed by documents in the corpus, fully grounding up to +8% more answers), and the accuracy of those grounded answers (up to +8% absolute). We also show that, in a human evaluation in the medical domain, our distilled microtheories contain a significantly higher concentration of topically critical facts than the non-distilled knowledge store. Finally, we show we can quantify the coverage of a microtheory for a topic (characterized by a dataset) using a notion of $p$-relevance. Together, these suggest that microtheories are an efficient distillation of an LM's topic-relevant knowledge, that they can usefully augment existing corpora, and can provide both performance gains and an interpretable, verifiable window into the model's knowledge of a topic.