Randomly Sampled Language Reasoning Problems Reveal Limits of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02825v3
• Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 23:02:29 GMT
• Title: Randomly Sampled Language Reasoning Problems Reveal Limits of LLMs
• Authors: Kavi Gupta, Kate Sanders, Armando Solar-Lezama,
• Abstract summary: We attempt to measure models' language understanding capacity while circumventing the risk of dataset recall. We parameterize large families of language tasks recognized by deterministic finite automata (DFAs) We find that, even in the strikingly simple setting of 3-state DFAs, LLMs underperform un parameterized ngram models on both language recognition and synthesis tasks.
• Score: 8.146860674148044
• License:
• Abstract: Can LLMs pick up language structure from examples? Evidence in prior work seems to indicate yes, as pretrained models repeatedly demonstrate the ability to adapt to new language structures and vocabularies. However, this line of research typically considers languages that are present within common pretraining datasets, or otherwise share notable similarities with these seen languages. In contrast, in this work we attempt to measure models' language understanding capacity while circumventing the risk of dataset recall. We parameterize large families of language tasks recognized by deterministic finite automata (DFAs), and can thus sample novel language reasoning problems to fairly evaulate LLMs regardless of training data. We find that, even in the strikingly simple setting of 3-state DFAs, LLMs underperform unparameterized ngram models on both language recognition and synthesis tasks. These results suggest that LLMs struggle to match the ability of basic language models in recognizing and reasoning over languages that are sufficiently distinct from the ones they see at training time, underscoring the distinction between learning individual languages and possessing a general theory of language.

Related papers

• Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages? [62.823015163987996]
  Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans. We discuss how language models (LMs) allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals. We test LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T20:40:01Z)
• How Do Multilingual Language Models Remember Facts? [50.13632788453612]
  We show that previously identified recall mechanisms in English largely apply to multilingual contexts. We localize the role of language during recall, finding that subject enrichment is language-independent. In decoder-only LLMs, FVs compose these two pieces of information in two separate stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T11:39:34Z)
• Large Language Models are Easily Confused: A Quantitative Metric, Security Implications and Typological Analysis [5.029635172046762]
  Language Confusion is a phenomenon where Large Language Models (LLMs) generate text that is neither in the desired language, nor in a contextually appropriate language. We introduce a novel metric, Language Confusion Entropy, designed to measure and quantify this confusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T05:43:30Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts. We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion. We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• Crosslingual Capabilities and Knowledge Barriers in Multilingual Large Language Models [62.91524967852552]
  Large language models (LLMs) are typically multilingual due to pretraining on diverse multilingual corpora. But can these models relate corresponding concepts across languages, effectively being crosslingual? This study evaluates six state-of-the-art LLMs on inherently crosslingual tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-23T15:15:17Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Neural Language Models as Cognitive Models of Language Acquisition [4.779196219827507]
  We argue that some of the most prominent benchmarks for evaluating the syntactic capacities of neural language models may not be sufficiently rigorous. When trained on small-scale data modeling child language acquisition, the LMs can be readily matched by simple baseline models. We conclude with suggestions for better connecting LMs with the empirical study of child language acquisition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T00:16:17Z)
• 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)

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.