Are LLMs good pragmatic speakers?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01562v1
• Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 13:23:18 GMT
• Title: Are LLMs good pragmatic speakers?
• Authors: Mingyue Jian, Siddharth Narayanaswamy,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 3.4113474745671923
• License:
• Abstract: 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. Using the paradigm of a reference game constructed from the TUNA corpus, we score candidate referential utterances in both a state-of-the-art LLM (Llama3-8B-Instruct) and in the RSA model, comparing and contrasting these scores. Given that RSA requires defining alternative utterances and a truth-conditional meaning function, we explore such comparison for different choices of each of these requirements. 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. This initial study paves way for further targeted efforts exploring different models and settings, including human-subject evaluation, to see if LLMs truly can, or be made to, behave like pragmatic speakers.

Related papers

• Kallini et al. (2024) do not compare impossible languages with constituency-based ones [0.0]
  A central goal of linguistic theory is to find a characterization of the notion "possible human language" Recent large language models (LLMs) in NLP applications arguably raises the possibility that LLMs might be computational devices that meet this goal. I explain the confound and suggest some ways forward towards constructing a comparison that appropriately tests the underlying issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:16:30Z)
• One Language, Many Gaps: Evaluating Dialect Fairness and Robustness of Large Language Models in Reasoning Tasks [55.35278531907263]
  We present the first study on Large Language Models' fairness and robustness to a dialect in canonical reasoning tasks. We hire AAVE speakers to rewrite seven popular benchmarks, such as HumanEval and GSM8K. We find that, compared to Standardized English, almost all of these widely used models show significant brittleness and unfairness to queries in AAVE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T18:44:23Z)
• What Languages are Easy to Language-Model? A Perspective from Learning Probabilistic Regular Languages [78.1866280652834]
  Large language models (LM) are distributions over strings. We investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs. We find that the complexity of the RLM rank is strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:34:24Z)
• Large language models and linguistic intentionality [0.0]
  I will argue that we should instead consider whether language models meet the criteria given by our best metasemantic theories of linguistic content. I will argue that it is a mistake to think that the failure of LLMs to meet plausible conditions for mental intentionality thereby renders their outputs meaningless.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T08:37:26Z)
• PhonologyBench: Evaluating Phonological Skills of Large Language Models [57.80997670335227]
  Phonology, the study of speech's structure and pronunciation rules, is a critical yet often overlooked component in Large Language Model (LLM) research. We present PhonologyBench, a novel benchmark consisting of three diagnostic tasks designed to explicitly test the phonological skills of LLMs. We observe a significant gap of 17% and 45% on Rhyme Word Generation and Syllable counting, respectively, when compared to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T04:53:14Z)
• Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Prompting [87.30837365008931]
  Large language models (LLMs) equipped with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are able to make accurate incremental predictions even on unscalable tasks. This study examines the impact of LLMs' step-by-step predictions on gender bias in unscalable tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T06:50:10Z)
• How Proficient Are Large Language Models in Formal Languages? An In-Depth Insight for Knowledge Base Question Answering [52.86931192259096]
  Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) aims to answer natural language questions based on facts in knowledge bases. Recent works leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for logical form generation to improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T09:27:50Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Evaluating statistical language models as pragmatic reasoners [39.72348730045737]
  We evaluate the capacity of large language models to infer meanings of pragmatic utterances. We find that LLMs can derive context-grounded, human-like distributions over the interpretations of several complex pragmatic utterances. Results inform the inferential capacity of statistical language models, and their use in pragmatic and semantic parsing applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T18:22:10Z)
• 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)
• Learning to refer informatively by amortizing pragmatic reasoning [35.71540493379324]
  We explore the idea that speakers might learn to amortize the cost of Rational Speech Acts over time. We find that our amortized model is able to quickly generate language that is effective and concise across a range of contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T02:52:22Z)

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.