Do LLMs Really Adapt to Domains? An Ontology Learning Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19998v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:29:43 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs Really Adapt to Domains? An Ontology Learning Perspective
• Authors: Huu Tan Mai, Cuong Xuan Chu, Heiko Paulheim,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented prowess across various natural language processing tasks in various application domains. Recent studies show that LLMs can be leveraged to perform lexical semantic tasks, such as Knowledge Base Completion (KBC) or Ontology Learning (OL) This paper investigates the question: Do LLMs really adapt to domains and remain consistent in the extraction of structured knowledge, or do they only learn lexical senses instead of reasoning?
• Score: 2.0755366440393743
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented prowess across various natural language processing tasks in various application domains. Recent studies show that LLMs can be leveraged to perform lexical semantic tasks, such as Knowledge Base Completion (KBC) or Ontology Learning (OL). However, it has not effectively been verified whether their success is due to their ability to reason over unstructured or semi-structured data, or their effective learning of linguistic patterns and senses alone. This unresolved question is particularly crucial when dealing with domain-specific data, where the lexical senses and their meaning can completely differ from what a LLM has learned during its training stage. This paper investigates the following question: Do LLMs really adapt to domains and remain consistent in the extraction of structured knowledge, or do they only learn lexical senses instead of reasoning? To answer this question and, we devise a controlled experiment setup that uses WordNet to synthesize parallel corpora, with English and gibberish terms. We examine the differences in the outputs of LLMs for each corpus in two OL tasks: relation extraction and taxonomy discovery. Empirical results show that, while adapting to the gibberish corpora, off-the-shelf LLMs do not consistently reason over semantic relationships between concepts, and instead leverage senses and their frame. However, fine-tuning improves the performance of LLMs on lexical semantic tasks even when the domain-specific terms are arbitrary and unseen during pre-training, hinting at the applicability of pre-trained LLMs for OL.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Understand Ambiguity in Text? A Case Study in Open-world Question Answering [15.342415325821063]
  Ambiguity in natural language poses significant challenges to Large Language Models (LLMs) used for open-domain question answering. We compare off-the-shelf and few-shot LLM performance, focusing on measuring the impact of explicit disambiguation strategies. We demonstrate how simple, training-free, token-level disambiguation methods may be effectively used to improve LLM performance for ambiguous question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T10:27:26Z)
• RuAG: Learned-rule-augmented Generation for Large Language Models [62.64389390179651]
  We propose a novel framework, RuAG, to automatically distill large volumes of offline data into interpretable first-order logic rules. We evaluate our framework on public and private industrial tasks, including natural language processing, time-series, decision-making, and industrial tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T00:01:34Z)
• Exploring Language Model Generalization in Low-Resource Extractive QA [57.14068405860034]
  We investigate Extractive Question Answering (EQA) with Large Language Models (LLMs) under domain drift. We devise a series of experiments to empirically explain the performance gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T05:06:43Z)
• 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)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• 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)
• Rethinking Interpretability in the Era of Large Language Models [76.1947554386879]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide array of tasks. The capability to explain in natural language allows LLMs to expand the scale and complexity of patterns that can be given to a human. These new capabilities raise new challenges, such as hallucinated explanations and immense computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T17:38:54Z)
• Limits for Learning with Language Models [4.20859414811553]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) are unable to learn concepts beyond the first level of the Borel Hierarchy. LLMs will continue to operate without formal guarantees on tasks that require entailments and deep linguistic understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T12:11:31Z)
• Translating Natural Language to Planning Goals with Large-Language Models [19.738395237639136]
  Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Our central question is whether LLMs are able to translate goals specified in natural language to a structured planning language. Our empirical results on GPT 3.5 variants show that LLMs are much better suited towards translation rather than planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T09:17:52Z)

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.