The Zero Body Problem: Probing LLM Use of Sensory Language

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06393v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 19:31:37 GMT
• Title: The Zero Body Problem: Probing LLM Use of Sensory Language
• Authors: Rebecca M. M. Hicke, Sil Hamilton, David Mimno,
• Abstract summary: Sensory language expresses embodied experiences ranging from taste and sound to excitement and stomachache.<n>This language is of interest to scholars from a wide range of domains including robotics, narratology, linguistics, and cognitive science.<n>We extend an existing corpus of parallel human and model responses to short story prompts with an additional 18,000 stories generated by 18 popular models.
• Score: 3.1815791977708834
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Sensory language expresses embodied experiences ranging from taste and sound to excitement and stomachache. This language is of interest to scholars from a wide range of domains including robotics, narratology, linguistics, and cognitive science. In this work, we explore whether language models, which are not embodied, can approximate human use of embodied language. We extend an existing corpus of parallel human and model responses to short story prompts with an additional 18,000 stories generated by 18 popular models. We find that all models generate stories that differ significantly from human usage of sensory language, but the direction of these differences varies considerably between model families. Namely, Gemini models use significantly more sensory language than humans along most axes whereas most models from the remaining five families use significantly less. Linear probes run on five models suggest that they are capable of identifying sensory language. However, we find preliminary evidence suggesting that instruction tuning may discourage usage of sensory language. Finally, to support further work, we release our expanded story dataset.

Related papers

• A Distributional Perspective on Word Learning in Neural Language Models [57.41607944290822]
  There are no widely agreed-upon metrics for word learning in language models. We argue that distributional signatures studied in prior work fail to capture key distributional information. We obtain learning trajectories for a selection of small language models we train from scratch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T13:15:59Z)
• Exploring Spatial Schema Intuitions in Large Language and Vision Models [8.944921398608063]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) effectively capture implicit human intuitions about building blocks of language. Surprisingly, correlations between model outputs and human responses emerge, revealing adaptability without a tangible connection to embodied experiences. This research contributes to a nuanced understanding of the interplay between language, spatial experiences, and computations made by large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T19:25:50Z)
• Visually Grounded Language Learning: a review of language games, datasets, tasks, and models [60.2604624857992]
  Many Vision+Language (V+L) tasks have been defined with the aim of creating models that can ground symbols in the visual modality. In this work, we provide a systematic literature review of several tasks and models proposed in the V+L field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-05T02:17:29Z)
• Causal Graph in Language Model Rediscovers Cortical Hierarchy in Human Narrative Processing [0.0]
  Previous studies have demonstrated that the features of language models can be mapped to fMRI brain activity. This raises the question: is there a commonality between information processing in language models and the human brain? To estimate information flow patterns in a language model, we examined the causal relationships between different layers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-17T10:09:12Z)
• Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes [47.7950860342515]
  Modern neural language models (LMs) are powerful tools for modeling human sentence production and comprehension. But to achieve these results, LMs must be trained in distinctly un-human-like ways. Do models trained more naturalistically -- with grounded supervision -- exhibit more humanlike language learning? We investigate this question in the context of word learning, a key sub-task in language acquisition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T03:33:36Z)
• A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language models [2.231167375820083]
  We compare language models and humans on seven pragmatic phenomena. We find that the largest models achieve high accuracy and match human error patterns. Preliminary evidence that models and humans are sensitive to similar linguistic cues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T18:34:59Z)
• Do Large Language Models know what humans know? [6.2997667081978825]
  We present a linguistic version of the False Belief Task to both human participants and a Large Language Model, GPT-3. Both are sensitive to others' beliefs, but while the language model significantly exceeds chance behavior, it does not perform as well as the humans, nor does it explain the full extent of their behavior. This suggests that while statistical learning from language exposure may in part explain how humans develop the ability to reason about the mental states of others, other mechanisms are also responsible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-04T01:29:53Z)
• What Artificial Neural Networks Can Tell Us About Human Language Acquisition [47.761188531404066]
  Rapid progress in machine learning for natural language processing has the potential to transform debates about how humans learn language. To increase the relevance of learnability results from computational models, we need to train model learners without significant advantages over humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-17T00:12:37Z)
• Same Neurons, Different Languages: Probing Morphosyntax in Multilingual Pre-trained Models [84.86942006830772]
  We conjecture that multilingual pre-trained models can derive language-universal abstractions about grammar. We conduct the first large-scale empirical study over 43 languages and 14 morphosyntactic categories with a state-of-the-art neuron-level probe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-04T12:22:31Z)
• Estimating the Personality of White-Box Language Models [0.589889361990138]
  Large-scale language models, which are trained on large corpora of text, are being used in a wide range of applications everywhere. Existing research shows that these models can and do capture human biases. Many of these biases, especially those that could potentially cause harm, are being well-investigated. However, studies that infer and change human personality traits inherited by these models have been scarce or non-existent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T23:53:53Z)
• Towards Zero-shot Language Modeling [90.80124496312274]
  We construct a neural model that is inductively biased towards learning human languages. We infer this distribution from a sample of typologically diverse training languages. We harness additional language-specific side information as distant supervision for held-out languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-06T23:49:18Z)
• Uncovering Constraint-Based Behavior in Neural Models via Targeted Fine-Tuning [9.391375268580806]
  We show that competing linguistic processes within a language obscure underlying linguistic knowledge. While human behavior has been found to be similar across languages, we find cross-linguistic variation in model behavior. Our results suggest that models need to learn both the linguistic constraints in a language and their relative ranking, with mismatches in either producing non-human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T14:52:11Z)
• PIGLeT: Language Grounding Through Neuro-Symbolic Interaction in a 3D World [86.21137454228848]
  We factorize PIGLeT into a physical dynamics model, and a separate language model. PIGLeT can read a sentence, simulate neurally what might happen next, and then communicate that result through a literal symbolic representation. It is able to correctly forecast "what happens next" given an English sentence over 80% of the time, outperforming a 100x larger, text-to-text approach by over 10%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T02:32:12Z)

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.