Perceptions of Linguistic Uncertainty by Language Models and Humans

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15814v2
• Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 17:33:37 GMT
• Title: Perceptions of Linguistic Uncertainty by Language Models and Humans
• Authors: Catarina G Belem, Markelle Kelly, Mark Steyvers, Sameer Singh, Padhraic Smyth,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how language models map linguistic expressions of uncertainty to numerical responses. We find that 7 out of 10 models are able to map uncertainty expressions to probabilistic responses in a human-like manner. This sensitivity indicates that language models are substantially more susceptible to bias based on their prior knowledge.
• Score: 26.69714008538173
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: _Uncertainty expressions_ such as "probably" or "highly unlikely" are pervasive in human language. While prior work has established that there is population-level agreement in terms of how humans quantitatively interpret these expressions, there has been little inquiry into the abilities of language models in the same context. In this paper, we investigate how language models map linguistic expressions of uncertainty to numerical responses. Our approach assesses whether language models can employ theory of mind in this setting: understanding the uncertainty of another agent about a particular statement, independently of the model's own certainty about that statement. We find that 7 out of 10 models are able to map uncertainty expressions to probabilistic responses in a human-like manner. However, we observe systematically different behavior depending on whether a statement is actually true or false. This sensitivity indicates that language models are substantially more susceptible to bias based on their prior knowledge (as compared to humans). These findings raise important questions and have broad implications for human-AI and AI-AI communication.

Related papers

• A Psycholinguistic Evaluation of Language Models' Sensitivity to Argument Roles [0.06554326244334868]
  We evaluate large language models' sensitivity to argument roles by replicating psycholinguistic studies on human argument role processing. We find that language models are able to distinguish verbs that appear in plausible and implausible contexts, where plausibility is determined through the relation between the verb and its preceding arguments. This indicates that language models' capacity to detect verb plausibility does not arise from the same mechanism that underlies human real-time sentence processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T16:05:58Z)
• UNcommonsense Reasoning: Abductive Reasoning about Uncommon Situations [62.71847873326847]
  We investigate the ability to model unusual, unexpected, and unlikely situations. Given a piece of context with an unexpected outcome, this task requires reasoning abductively to generate an explanation. We release a new English language corpus called UNcommonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:00:55Z)
• Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation [37.37606905433334]
  We show that measuring uncertainty in natural language is challenging because of "semantic equivalence" We introduce semantic entropy -- an entropy which incorporates linguistic invariances created by shared meanings. Our method is unsupervised, uses only a single model, and requires no modifications to off-the-shelf language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T20:10:07Z)
• A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language models [2.231167375820083]
  We compare language models and humans on seven pragmatic phenomena. We find that the largest models achieve high accuracy and match human error patterns. Preliminary evidence that models and humans are sensitive to similar linguistic cues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T18:34:59Z)
• Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision [72.95136739040676]
  Existing techniques for training language models can be misaligned with the truth. We propose directly finding latent knowledge inside the internal activations of a language model in a purely unsupervised way. We show that despite using no supervision and no model outputs, our method can recover diverse knowledge represented in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-07T18:17:56Z)
• 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)
• Do Large Language Models know what humans know? [6.2997667081978825]
  We present a linguistic version of the False Belief Task to both human participants and a Large Language Model, GPT-3. Both are sensitive to others' beliefs, but while the language model significantly exceeds chance behavior, it does not perform as well as the humans, nor does it explain the full extent of their behavior. This suggests that while statistical learning from language exposure may in part explain how humans develop the ability to reason about the mental states of others, other mechanisms are also responsible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-04T01:29:53Z)
• On the probability-quality paradox in language generation [76.69397802617064]
  We analyze language generation through an information-theoretic lens. We posit that human-like language should contain an amount of information close to the entropy of the distribution over natural strings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-31T17:43:53Z)
• Do Multilingual Language Models Capture Differing Moral Norms? [71.52261949766101]
  Massively multilingual sentence representations are trained on large corpora of uncurated data. This may cause the models to grasp cultural values including moral judgments from the high-resource languages. The lack of data in certain languages can also lead to developing random and thus potentially harmful beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-18T12:26:37Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)
• Statistical patterns of word frequency suggesting the probabilistic nature of human languages [5.059800023492045]
  The study shows that important linguistic issues, such as linguistic universal, diachronic drift, and language variations can be translated into probability and frequency patterns in parole. These findings suggest that human language may well be probabilistic systems by nature, and that statistical may well make inherent properties of human languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T00:48:27Z)

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.