Patrick Cooper
Publications
DeFAb: A Verifiable Benchmark for Defeasible Abduction in Foundation Models
A rule-based logic solver resolves every instance in our benchmark in under 50 microseconds with 100% accuracy; the best frontier language model reaches 65% at best and drops to 23.5% under rendering-robust evaluation (worst case over four surface renderings). We introduce DeFAb (Defeasible Abduction Benchmark), a dataset and generation pipeline that converts four decades of publicly funded knowledge bases into formally grounded instances for defeasible abduction: constructing hypotheses that explain anomalies by overriding defaults while preserving unrelated expectations. Because every hypothesis must pass polynomial-time checks for valid derivation, conservativity, and minimality, DeFAb makes logical rigor the instrument for measuring creativity and theoretical reasoning, scoring the disciplined construction of theory revisions rather than fluent but theory-destroying prose. The pipeline pairs taxonomic hierarchies (OpenCyc, YAGO, Wikidata) with behavioral property graphs (ConceptNet, UMLS) to produce 372,648+ instances across 33.75M materialized rules from 18 sources, in three levels with polynomial-time verifiable gold standards. Four frontier models do not reliably internalize defeasible reasoning: rendering-robust Level 2 accuracy is 7.8-23.5%; chain-of-thought variance (~36 pp) exceeds any inter-model gap; and a matched contamination control isolates a +19.4 pp Level 3 gap. We further release DeFAb-Hard (a 235-instance Level 3 difficulty variant; best model 53.3% vs 100% symbolic) and CONJURE (a kernel-verified transformative-creativity variant of 560 Lean 4/Mathlib instances whose gold answers are definitions the proof kernel did not previously contain, judge-free verifier; a pilot finds zero novel concepts). The same verifier doubles as an exact reward for preference optimization (DPO, RLVR/GRPO). Released under MIT at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PatrickAllenCooper/DeFAb.
Monotonicity as an Architectural Bias for Robust Language Models
Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit brittle behavior under adversarial prompts and jailbreak attacks, even after extensive alignment and fine-tuning. This fragility reflects a broader challenge of modern neural language models: small, carefully structured perturbations in high-dimensional input spaces can induce large and unpredictable changes in internal semantic representations and output. We investigate monotonicity as an architectural inductive bias for improving the robustness of Transformer-based language models. Monotonicity constrains semantic transformations so that strengthening information, evidence, or constraints cannot lead to regressions in the corresponding internal representations. Such order-preserving behavior has long been exploited in control and safety-critical systems to simplify reasoning and improve robustness, but has traditionally been viewed as incompatible with the expressivity required by neural language models. We show that this trade-off is not inherent. By enforcing monotonicity selectively in the feed-forward sublayers of sequence-to-sequence Transformers -- while leaving attention mechanisms unconstrained -- we obtain monotone language models that preserve the performance of their pretrained counterparts. This architectural separation allows negation, contradiction, and contextual interactions to be introduced explicitly through attention, while ensuring that subsequent semantic refinement is order-preserving. Empirically, monotonicity substantially improves robustness: adversarial attack success rates drop from approximately 69% to 19%, while standard summarization performance degrades only marginally.
Active Causal Experimentalist (ACE): Learning Intervention Strategies via Direct Preference Optimization
Discovering causal relationships requires controlled experiments, but experimentalists face a sequential decision problem: each intervention reveals information that should inform what to try next. Traditional approaches such as random sampling, greedy information maximization, and round-robin coverage treat each decision in isolation, unable to learn adaptive strategies from experience. We propose Active Causal Experimentalist (ACE), which learns experimental design as a sequential policy. Our key insight is that while absolute information gains diminish as knowledge accumulates (making value-based RL unstable), relative comparisons between candidate interventions remain meaningful throughout. ACE exploits this via Direct Preference Optimization, learning from pairwise intervention comparisons rather than non-stationary reward magnitudes. Across synthetic benchmarks, physics simulations, and economic data, ACE achieves 70-71% improvement over baselines at equal intervention budgets (p < 0.001, Cohen's d ~ 2). Notably, the learned policy autonomously discovers that collider mechanisms require concentrated interventions on parent variables, a theoretically-grounded strategy that emerges purely from experience. This suggests preference-based learning can recover principled experimental strategies, complementing theory with learned domain adaptation.