Do Pre-Trained Language Models Detect and Understand Semantic Underspecification? Ask the DUST!

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12486v2
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:09:47 GMT
• Title: Do Pre-Trained Language Models Detect and Understand Semantic Underspecification? Ask the DUST!
• Authors: Frank Wildenburg, Michael Hanna, Sandro Pezzelle,
• Abstract summary: We study whether pre-trained language models (LMs) correctly identify and interpret underspecified sentences. Our experiments show that when interpreting underspecified sentences, LMs exhibit little uncertainty, contrary to what theoretical accounts of underspecification would predict.
• Score: 4.1970767174840455
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In everyday language use, speakers frequently utter and interpret sentences that are semantically underspecified, namely, whose content is insufficient to fully convey their message or interpret them univocally. For example, to interpret the underspecified sentence "Don't spend too much", which leaves implicit what (not) to spend, additional linguistic context or outside knowledge is needed. In this work, we propose a novel Dataset of semantically Underspecified Sentences grouped by Type (DUST) and use it to study whether pre-trained language models (LMs) correctly identify and interpret underspecified sentences. We find that newer LMs are reasonably able to identify underspecified sentences when explicitly prompted. However, interpreting them correctly is much harder for any LMs. Our experiments show that when interpreting underspecified sentences, LMs exhibit little uncertainty, contrary to what theoretical accounts of underspecification would predict. Overall, our study reveals limitations in current models' processing of sentence semantics and highlights the importance of using naturalistic data and communicative scenarios when evaluating LMs' language capabilities.

Related papers

• Investigating large language models for their competence in extracting grammatically sound sentences from transcribed noisy utterances [1.3597551064547497]
  Humans exhibit remarkable cognitive abilities to separate semantically significant content from speech-specific noise. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can effectively perform analogical speech comprehension tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T14:55:20Z)
• Incremental Comprehension of Garden-Path Sentences by Large Language Models: Semantic Interpretation, Syntactic Re-Analysis, and Attention [11.073959609358088]
  We investigate the processing of garden-path sentences and the fate of lingering misinterpretations using four large language models. The overall goal is to evaluate whether humans and LLMs are aligned in their processing of garden-path sentences. Experiments show promising alignment between humans and LLMs in the processing of garden-path sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T03:36:13Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations [56.85319224208865]
  We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account. We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed. Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)
• Are Representations Built from the Ground Up? An Empirical Examination of Local Composition in Language Models [91.3755431537592]
  Representing compositional and non-compositional phrases is critical for language understanding. We first formulate a problem of predicting the LM-internal representations of longer phrases given those of their constituents. While we would expect the predictive accuracy to correlate with human judgments of semantic compositionality, we find this is largely not the case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-07T14:21:30Z)
• The Language Model Understood the Prompt was Ambiguous: Probing Syntactic Uncertainty Through Generation [23.711953448400514]
  We inspect to which extent neural language models (LMs) exhibit uncertainty over such analyses. We find that LMs can track multiple analyses simultaneously. As a response to disambiguating cues, the LMs often select the correct interpretation, but occasional errors point to potential areas of improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T10:27:05Z)
• Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semantics [76.73599166020307]
  We present a systematic empirical analysis across six typologically diverse languages and five different lexical tasks. Our results indicate patterns and best practices that hold universally, but also point to prominent variations across languages and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T14:24:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.