When the LM misunderstood the human chuckled: Analyzing garden path effects in humans and language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09307v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:19:33 GMT
• Title: When the LM misunderstood the human chuckled: Analyzing garden path effects in humans and language models
• Authors: Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Aya Meltzer-Asscher, Jonathan Berant,
• Abstract summary: Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown human-like abilities in many language tasks. We compare the two on a sentence comprehension task using garden-path constructions. Our findings reveal that both LLMs and humans struggle with specific syntactic complexities.
• Score: 41.929897900569905
• License:
• Abstract: Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown human-like abilities in many language tasks, sparking interest in comparing LLMs' and humans' language processing. In this paper, we conduct a detailed comparison of the two on a sentence comprehension task using garden-path constructions, which are notoriously challenging for humans. Based on psycholinguistic research, we formulate hypotheses on why garden-path sentences are hard, and test these hypotheses on human participants and a large suite of LLMs using comprehension questions. Our findings reveal that both LLMs and humans struggle with specific syntactic complexities, with some models showing high correlation with human comprehension. To complement our findings, we test LLM comprehension of garden-path constructions with paraphrasing and text-to-image generation tasks, and find that the results mirror the sentence comprehension question results, further validating our findings on LLM understanding of these constructions.

Related papers

• Non-literal Understanding of Number Words by Language Models [33.24263583093367]
  Humans naturally interpret numbers non-literally, combining context, world knowledge, and speaker intent. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) interpret numbers similarly, focusing on hyperbole and pragmatic halo effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T07:03:00Z)
• HLB: Benchmarking LLMs' Humanlikeness in Language Use [2.438748974410787]
  We present a comprehensive humanlikeness benchmark (HLB) evaluating 20 large language models (LLMs) We collected responses from over 2,000 human participants and compared them to outputs from the LLMs in these experiments. Our results reveal fine-grained differences in how well LLMs replicate human responses across various linguistic levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T09:02:28Z)
• Negation Blindness in Large Language Models: Unveiling the NO Syndrome in Image Generation [63.064204206220936]
  Foundational Large Language Models (LLMs) have changed the way we perceive technology. They have been shown to excel in tasks ranging from poem writing to coding to essay generation and puzzle solving. With the incorporation of image generation capability, they have become more comprehensive and versatile AI tools. Currently identified flaws include hallucination, biases, and bypassing restricted commands to generate harmful content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T14:40:16Z)
• Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Words [3.9901365062418317]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-18T18:08:58Z)
• 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)
• When LLMs Meet Cunning Texts: A Fallacy Understanding Benchmark for Large Language Models [59.84769254832941]
  We propose a FaLlacy Understanding Benchmark (FLUB) containing cunning texts that are easy for humans to understand but difficult for models to grasp. Specifically, the cunning texts that FLUB focuses on mainly consist of the tricky, humorous, and misleading texts collected from the real internet environment. Based on FLUB, we investigate the performance of multiple representative and advanced LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T22:12:53Z)
• Do Language Models Exhibit the Same Cognitive Biases in Problem Solving as Human Learners? [140.9751389452011]
  We study the biases of large language models (LLMs) in relation to those known in children when solving arithmetic word problems. We generate a novel set of word problems for each of these tests, using a neuro-symbolic approach that enables fine-grained control over the problem features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T18:48:20Z)
• Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
  We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing. We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense. Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z)
• Testing AI on language comprehension tasks reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning [3.335047764053173]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are recruited in applications that span from clinical assistance and legal support to question answering and education. Yet, reverse-engineering is bound by Moravec's Paradox, according to which easy skills are hard. We systematically assess 7 state-of-the-art models on a novel benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T20:18:52Z)
• Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Like [32.488137777336036]
  We show discrepancies in context access between modern neural language models (LMs) and humans in incremental sentence processing. Additional context limitation was needed to make LMs better simulate human reading behavior. Our analyses also showed that human-LM gaps in memory access are associated with specific syntactic constructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T17:01:13Z)

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.