Related papers: Constructions Are So Difficult That Even Large Language Models Get Them Right for the Wrong Reasons

Constructions Are So Difficult That Even Large Language Models Get Them Right for the Wrong Reasons

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17760v2
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 23:41:37 GMT
Title: Constructions Are So Difficult That Even Large Language Models Get Them Right for the Wrong Reasons
Authors: Shijia Zhou, Leonie Weissweiler, Taiqi He, Hinrich Schütze, David R. Mortensen, Lori Levin,
Abstract summary: We introduce a small challenge dataset for NLI with large lexical overlap. We show that GPT-4 and Llama 2 fail it with strong bias. From a Computational Linguistics perspective, we identify a group of constructions with three classes of adjectives which cannot be distinguished by surface features.
Score: 43.708431369382176
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: In this paper, we make a contribution that can be understood from two perspectives: from an NLP perspective, we introduce a small challenge dataset for NLI with large lexical overlap, which minimises the possibility of models discerning entailment solely based on token distinctions, and show that GPT-4 and Llama 2 fail it with strong bias. We then create further challenging sub-tasks in an effort to explain this failure. From a Computational Linguistics perspective, we identify a group of constructions with three classes of adjectives which cannot be distinguished by surface features. This enables us to probe for LLM's understanding of these constructions in various ways, and we find that they fail in a variety of ways to distinguish between them, suggesting that they don't adequately represent their meaning or capture the lexical properties of phrasal heads.

Related papers

Transforming Hidden States into Binary Semantic Features [0.0]
We propose to employ the distributional theory of meaning once again. Using Independent Component Analysis to overcome some of its challenging aspects, we show that large language models represent semantic features in their hidden states.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-29T22:23:52Z)
Seemingly Plausible Distractors in Multi-Hop Reasoning: Are Large Language Models Attentive Readers? [6.525065859315515]
We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to exploiting simplifying cues in multi-hop reasoning benchmarks. Motivated by this finding, we propose a challenging multi-hop reasoning benchmark, by generating seemingly plausible multi-hop reasoning chains. We find that their performance to perform multi-hop reasoning is affected, as indicated by up to 45% relative decrease in F1 score when presented with such seemingly plausible alternatives.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-08T19:22:58Z)
Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Words [3.9901365062418317]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performances on a wide range of natural language tasks. We show that most of them fail to reliably carry out even the simple tasks that can be handled by humans with perfection.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-18T18:08:58Z)
FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
Towards LLM-guided Causal Explainability for Black-box Text Classifiers [16.36602400590088]
We aim to leverage the instruction-following and textual understanding capabilities of recent Large Language Models to facilitate causal explainability. We propose a three-step pipeline via which, we use an off-the-shelf LLM to identify the latent or unobserved features in the input text. We experiment with our pipeline on multiple NLP text classification datasets, and present interesting and promising findings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-23T11:22:28Z)
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)
We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguity [136.8068419824318]
Managing ambiguity is a key part of human language understanding. We characterize ambiguity in a sentence by its effect on entailment relations with another sentence. We show that a multilabel NLI model can flag political claims in the wild that are misleading due to ambiguity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-27T17:57:58Z)
Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 small [68.879023473838]
We present an explanation for how GPT-2 small performs a natural language task called indirect object identification (IOI) To our knowledge, this investigation is the largest end-to-end attempt at reverse-engineering a natural behavior "in the wild" in a language model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-01T17:08:44Z)
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)

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