Negation: A Pink Elephant in the Large Language Models' Room?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22395v2
• Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 08:17:50 GMT
• Title: Negation: A Pink Elephant in the Large Language Models' Room?
• Authors: Tereza Vrabcová, Marek Kadlčík, Petr Sojka, Michal Štefánik, Michal Spiegel,
• Abstract summary: Negations are key to determining sentence meaning, making them essential for logical reasoning.<n>Despite their importance, negations pose a substantial challenge for large language models (LLMs)
• Score: 2.8078480738404
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Negations are key to determining sentence meaning, making them essential for logical reasoning. Despite their importance, negations pose a substantial challenge for large language models (LLMs) and remain underexplored. We constructed and published two new textual entailment datasets NoFEVER-ML and NoSNLI-ML in four languages (English, Czech, German, and Ukrainian) with examples differing in negation. It allows investigation of the root causes of the negation problem and its exemplification: how popular LLM model properties and language impact their inability to handle negation correctly. Contrary to previous work, we show that increasing the model size may improve the models' ability to handle negations. Furthermore, we find that both the models' reasoning accuracy and robustness to negation are language-dependent and that the length and explicitness of the premise have an impact on robustness. There is better accuracy in projective language with fixed order, such as English, than in non-projective ones, such as German or Czech. Our entailment datasets pave the way to further research for explanation and exemplification of the negation problem, minimization of LLM hallucinations, and improvement of LLM reasoning in multilingual settings.

Related papers

• ExpliCa: Evaluating Explicit Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [75.05436691700572]
  We introduce ExpliCa, a new dataset for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in explicit causal reasoning.<n>We tested seven commercial and open-source LLMs on ExpliCa through prompting and perplexity-based metrics.<n>Surprisingly, models tend to confound temporal relations with causal ones, and their performance is also strongly influenced by the linguistic order of the events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T14:23:14Z)
• Vision-Language Models Do Not Understand Negation [50.27667000027403]
  NegBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate negation understanding across 18 task variations and $79$k examples.<n>We show that this approach can result in a 10% increase in recall on negated queries and a 28% boost in accuracy on multiple-choice questions with negated captions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-16T09:55:42Z)
• Revisiting subword tokenization: A case study on affixal negation in large language models [57.75279238091522]
  We measure the impact of affixal negation on modern English large language models (LLMs) We conduct experiments using LLMs with different subword tokenization methods. We show that models can, on the whole, reliably recognize the meaning of affixal negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T03:14:27Z)
• This is not a Dataset: A Large Negation Benchmark to Challenge Large Language Models [4.017326849033009]
  We try to clarify the reasons for the sub-optimal performance of large language models understanding negation. We introduce a large semi-automatically generated dataset of circa 400,000 descriptive sentences about commonsense knowledge. We have used our dataset with the largest available open LLMs in a zero-shot approach to grasp their generalization and inference capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T15:38:21Z)
• Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks [58.32362243122714]
  We evaluate the ability of current-generation auto-regressive language models to handle negation. We show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T01:16:37Z)
• Rarely a problem? Language models exhibit inverse scaling in their predictions following few-type quantifiers [0.6091702876917281]
  We focus on 'few'-type quantifiers, as in 'few children like toys', which might pose a particular challenge for language models. We present 960 English sentence stimuli from two human neurolinguistic experiments to 22 autoregressive transformer models of differing sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T20:01:22Z)
• CONDAQA: A Contrastive Reading Comprehension Dataset for Reasoning about Negation [21.56001677478673]
  We present the first English reading comprehension dataset which requires reasoning about the implications of negated statements in paragraphs. CONDAQA features 14,182 question-answer pairs with over 200 unique negation cues. The best performing model on CONDAQA (UnifiedQA-v2-3b) achieves only 42% on our consistency metric, well below human performance which is 81%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-01T06:10:26Z)
• 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)
• Not another Negation Benchmark: The NaN-NLI Test Suite for Sub-clausal Negation [59.307534363825816]
  Negation is poorly captured by current language models, although the extent of this problem is not widely understood. We introduce a natural language inference (NLI) test suite to enable probing the capabilities of NLP methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-06T23:39:01Z)
• 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)
• Understanding by Understanding Not: Modeling Negation in Language Models [81.21351681735973]
  Negation is a core construction in natural language. We propose to augment the language modeling objective with an unlikelihood objective that is based on negated generic sentences. We reduce the mean top1 error rate to 4% on the negated LAMA dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T21:58:35Z)
• Detecting and Exorcising Statistical Demons from Language Models with Anti-Models of Negative Data [13.392212395386933]
  We find that within a model family, as the number of parameters, training epochs, and data set size increase, so does a model's ability to generalize to negative n-gram data. We propose a form of inductive bias that attenuates such undesirable signals with negative data distributions automatically learned from positive data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-22T16:45:32Z)
• Recurrent Neural Network Language Models Always Learn English-Like Relative Clause Attachment [17.995905582226463]
  We compare model performance in English and Spanish to show that non-linguistic biases in RNN LMs advantageously overlap with syntactic structure in English but not Spanish. English models may appear to acquire human-like syntactic preferences, while models trained on Spanish fail to acquire comparable human-like preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T01:21:47Z)
• Limits of Detecting Text Generated by Large-Scale Language Models [65.46403462928319]
  Some consider large-scale language models that can generate long and coherent pieces of text as dangerous, since they may be used in misinformation campaigns. Here we formulate large-scale language model output detection as a hypothesis testing problem to classify text as genuine or generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-09T19:53:23Z)

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.