Is the Pope Catholic? Yes, the Pope is Catholic. Generative Evaluation of Non-Literal Intent Resolution in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08760v2
• Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:07:47 GMT
• Title: Is the Pope Catholic? Yes, the Pope is Catholic. Generative Evaluation of Non-Literal Intent Resolution in LLMs
• Authors: Akhila Yerukola, Saujas Vaduguru, Daniel Fried, Maarten Sap,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate large language models' (LLMs') intention understanding by examining their responses to non-literal utterances. Our findings show that LLMs struggle to generate pragmatically relevant responses to non-literal language.
• Score: 29.09074652003724
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Humans often express their communicative intents indirectly or non-literally, which requires their interlocutors -- human or AI -- to understand beyond the literal meaning of words. While most existing work has focused on discriminative evaluations, we present a new approach to generatively evaluate large language models' (LLMs') intention understanding by examining their responses to non-literal utterances. Ideally, an LLM should respond in line with the true intention of a non-literal utterance, not its literal interpretation. Our findings show that LLMs struggle to generate pragmatically relevant responses to non-literal language, achieving only 50-55% accuracy on average. While explicitly providing oracle intentions significantly improves performance (e.g., 75% for Mistral-Instruct), this still indicates challenges in leveraging given intentions to produce appropriate responses. Using chain-of-thought to make models spell out intentions yields much smaller gains (60% for Mistral-Instruct). These findings suggest that LLMs are not yet effective pragmatic interlocutors, highlighting the need for better approaches for modeling intentions and utilizing them for pragmatic generation.

Related papers

• Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models [50.16340812031201]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) do not update their beliefs as expected from the Bayesian framework. We teach the LLMs to reason in a Bayesian manner by training them to mimic the predictions of an optimal Bayesian model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T20:13:04Z)
• Evaluating Large language models on Understanding Korean indirect Speech acts [0.6757476692230009]
  This study evaluates whether current LLMs can understand the intention of an utterance by considering the given conversational context. proprietary models exhibited relatively higher performance compared to open-source models. Most LLMs, except for Claude3-Opus, demonstrated significantly lower performance in understanding indirect speech acts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T04:59:19Z)
• Are LLMs good pragmatic speakers? [3.4113474745671923]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on data assumed to include natural language pragmatics, but do they actually behave like pragmatic speakers? We attempt to answer this question using the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework, which models pragmatic reasoning in human communication. We find that while scores from the LLM have some positive correlation with those from RSA, there isn't sufficient evidence to claim that it behaves like a pragmatic speaker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T13:23:18Z)
• MACAROON: Training Vision-Language Models To Be Your Engaged Partners [95.32771929749514]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) generate detailed responses even when questions are ambiguous or unlabeled. In this study, we aim to shift LVLMs from passive answer providers to proactive engaged partners. We introduce MACAROON, self-iMaginAtion for ContrAstive pReference OptimizatiON, which instructs LVLMs to autonomously generate contrastive response pairs for unlabeled questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T09:27:33Z)
• Can LLMs Understand the Implication of Emphasized Sentences in Dialogue? [64.72966061510375]
  Emphasis is a crucial component in human communication, which indicates the speaker's intention and implication beyond pure text in dialogue. This paper introduces Emphasized-Talk, a benchmark with emphasis-annotated dialogue samples capturing the implications of emphasis. We evaluate various Large Language Models (LLMs), both open-source and commercial, to measure their performance in understanding emphasis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T20:41:44Z)
• How do Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts between Honesty and Helpfulness? [14.706111954807021]
  We use psychological models and experiments designed to characterize human behavior to analyze large language models. We find that reinforcement learning from human feedback improves both honesty and helpfulness. GPT-4 Turbo demonstrates human-like response patterns including sensitivity to the conversational framing and listener's decision context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T19:13:26Z)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• Zero-Shot Goal-Directed Dialogue via RL on Imagined Conversations [70.7884839812069]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful and general solutions to many natural language tasks. However, many of the most important applications of language generation are interactive, where an agent has to talk to a person to reach a desired outcome. In this work, we explore a new method for adapting LLMs with RL for such goal-directed dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T18:45:16Z)
• Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding [1.3654846342364308]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are unparalleled in their ability to generate grammatically correct, fluent text. This position paper critically assesses three points recurring in critiques of LLM capacities. We outline a pragmatic perspective on the issue of real' understanding and intentionality in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:51:04Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• 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.