From Form(s) to Meaning: Probing the Semantic Depths of Language Models Using Multisense Consistency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12145v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:48:17 GMT
• Title: From Form(s) to Meaning: Probing the Semantic Depths of Language Models Using Multisense Consistency
• Authors: Xenia Ohmer, Elia Bruni, Dieuwke Hupkes,
• Abstract summary: We focus on consistency across languages as well as paraphrases. We find that the model's multisense consistency is lacking and run several follow-up analyses to verify. We conclude that, in this aspect, the understanding of LLMs is still quite far from being consistent and human-like.
• Score: 13.154753046052527
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The staggering pace with which the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are increasing, as measured by a range of commonly used natural language understanding (NLU) benchmarks, raises many questions regarding what "understanding" means for a language model and how it compares to human understanding. This is especially true since many LLMs are exclusively trained on text, casting doubt on whether their stellar benchmark performances are reflective of a true understanding of the problems represented by these benchmarks, or whether LLMs simply excel at uttering textual forms that correlate with what someone who understands the problem would say. In this philosophically inspired work, we aim to create some separation between form and meaning, with a series of tests that leverage the idea that world understanding should be consistent across presentational modes - inspired by Fregean senses - of the same meaning. Specifically, we focus on consistency across languages as well as paraphrases. Taking GPT-3.5 as our object of study, we evaluate multisense consistency across five different languages and various tasks. We start the evaluation in a controlled setting, asking the model for simple facts, and then proceed with an evaluation on four popular NLU benchmarks. We find that the model's multisense consistency is lacking and run several follow-up analyses to verify that this lack of consistency is due to a sense-dependent task understanding. We conclude that, in this aspect, the understanding of LLMs is still quite far from being consistent and human-like, and deliberate on how this impacts their utility in the context of learning about human language and understanding.

Related papers

• Evaluating Knowledge-based Cross-lingual Inconsistency in Large Language Models [16.942897938964638]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their successes, these models often exhibit significant inconsistencies when processing the same concepts across different languages. This study focuses on three primary questions: the existence of cross-lingual inconsistencies in LLMs, the specific aspects in which these inconsistencies manifest, and the correlation between cross-lingual consistency and multilingual capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T15:11:37Z)
• Can large language models understand uncommon meanings of common words? [30.527834781076546]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant advancements across diverse natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. Yet, lacking widely acknowledged testing mechanisms, answering whether LLMs are parrots or genuinely comprehend the world' remains unclear. This paper presents innovative construction of a Lexical Semantic dataset with novel evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T12:58:22Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• 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)
• When LLMs Meet Cunning Texts: A Fallacy Understanding Benchmark for Large Language Models [59.84769254832941]
  We propose a FaLlacy Understanding Benchmark (FLUB) containing cunning texts that are easy for humans to understand but difficult for models to grasp. Specifically, the cunning texts that FLUB focuses on mainly consist of the tricky, humorous, and misleading texts collected from the real internet environment. Based on FLUB, we investigate the performance of multiple representative and advanced LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T22:12:53Z)
• From Understanding to Utilization: A Survey on Explainability for Large Language Models [27.295767173801426]
  This survey underscores the imperative for increased explainability in Large Language Models (LLMs) Our focus is primarily on pre-trained Transformer-based LLMs, which pose distinctive interpretability challenges due to their scale and complexity. When considering the utilization of explainability, we explore several compelling methods that concentrate on model editing, control generation, and model enhancement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T16:09:53Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)
• 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)
• Separating form and meaning: Using self-consistency to quantify task understanding across multiple senses [14.784624121891328]
  We propose a novel paradigm for evaluating large language models (LLMs) We measure understanding not in terms of correctness but by evaluating consistency across multiple senses that are generated by the model itself. Our approach does not require any static evaluation corpora in languages other than English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T13:23:51Z)
• 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)
• The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMs [26.118193748582197]
  We evaluate four categories of widely used state-of-the-art models. We find that, despite only evaluating on utterances that require a binary inference, models in three of these categories perform close to random. These results suggest that certain fine-tuning strategies are far better at inducing pragmatic understanding in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T19:04:23Z)

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.