Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Words

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11357v3
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 14:39:06 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Words
• Authors: Andrew Shin, Kunitake Kaneko,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 3.9901365062418317
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performances on a wide range of natural language tasks. Yet, LLMs' successes have been largely restricted to tasks concerning words, sentences, or documents, and it remains questionable how much they understand the minimal units of text, namely characters. In this paper, we examine contemporary LLMs regarding their ability to understand character composition of words, and show that most of them fail to reliably carry out even the simple tasks that can be handled by humans with perfection. We analyze their behaviors with comparison to token level performances, and discuss the potential directions for future research.

Related papers

• LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are the result of a massive experiment in bottom-up, data-driven reverse engineering of language at scale. We will focus on testing LLMs for their language understanding capabilities, their supposed forte.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T01:21:11Z)
• Identifying and Analyzing Task-Encoding Tokens in Large Language Models [55.03191279766383]
  In this paper, we identify and analyze task-encoding tokens on whose representations the task performance depends. We show that template and stopword tokens are the most prone to be task-encoding. Our work sheds light on how large language models (LLMs) learn to perform a task from demonstrations, deepens our understanding of the varied roles different types of tokens play in LLMs, and provides insights for avoiding instability from improperly utilizing task-encoding tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T20:55:21Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasoners [12.354660792999269]
  Large Language Models have shown tremendous performance on a variety of natural language processing tasks. It is unclear whether LLMs can achieve human-like cognitive capabilities or whether these models are still fundamentally circumscribed. We introduce a new benchmark for evaluating language models beyond memorization on abstract reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T04:50:29Z)
• 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)
• Multilingual Large Language Models Are Not (Yet) Code-Switchers [41.47534626749588]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown great capabilities in a wide range of tasks. The practice of alternating languages within an utterance remains relatively uncharted. We argue that current "multilingualism" in LLMs does not inherently imply proficiency with code-switching texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:50:48Z)
• Interpretable Unified Language Checking [42.816372695828306]
  We present an interpretable, unified, language checking (UniLC) method for both human and machine-generated language. We find that LLMs can achieve high performance on a combination of fact-checking, stereotype detection, and hate speech detection tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T16:47:49Z)
• Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding [119.45683008451698]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on a series of natural language understanding tasks. They might rely on dataset bias and artifacts as shortcuts for prediction. This has significantly affected their generalizability and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T03:51:39Z)
• Testing the Ability of Language Models to Interpret Figurative Language [69.59943454934799]
  Figurative and metaphorical language are commonplace in discourse. It remains an open question to what extent modern language models can interpret nonliteral phrases. We introduce Fig-QA, a Winograd-style nonliteral language understanding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T23:42:22Z)
• Analyzing the Limits of Self-Supervision in Handling Bias in Language [52.26068057260399]
  We evaluate how well language models capture the semantics of four tasks for bias: diagnosis, identification, extraction and rephrasing. Our analyses indicate that language models are capable of performing these tasks to widely varying degrees across different bias dimensions, such as gender and political affiliation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T05:36:08Z)

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.