Do Large Language Models know who did what to whom?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16884v2
• Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:06:45 GMT
• Title: Do Large Language Models know who did what to whom?
• Authors: Joseph M. Denning, Xiaohan Hannah Guo, Bryor Snefjella, Idan A. Blank,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly criticized for not understanding language.<n>Here, we study a kind of understanding tightly linked to language: inferring who did what to whom in a sentence.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly criticized for not understanding language. However, many critiques focus on cognitive abilities that, in humans, are distinct from language processing. Here, we instead study a kind of understanding tightly linked to language: inferring who did what to whom (thematic roles) in a sentence. Does the central training objective of LLMs-word prediction-result in sentence representations that capture thematic roles? In two experiments, we characterized sentence representations in four LLMs. In contrast to human similarity judgments, in LLMs the overall representational similarity of sentence pairs reflected syntactic similarity but not whether their agent and patient assignments were identical vs. reversed. Furthermore, we found little evidence that thematic role information was available in any subset of hidden units. However, some attention heads robustly captured thematic roles, independently of syntax. Therefore, LLMs can extract thematic roles but, relative to humans, this information influences their representations more weakly.

Related papers

• Beyond Keywords: Evaluating Large Language Model Classification of Nuanced Ableism [2.0435202333125977]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making tasks like r'esum'e screening and content moderation.<n>We evaluate the ability of four LLMs to identify nuanced ableism directed at autistic individuals.<n>Our results reveal that LLMs can identify autism-related language but often miss harmful or offensive connotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T20:01:44Z)
• On the Thinking-Language Modeling Gap in Large Language Models [68.83670974539108]
  We show that there is a significant gap between the modeling of languages and thoughts.<n>We propose a new prompt technique termed Language-of-Thoughts (LoT) to demonstrate and alleviate this gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T09:31:52Z)
• Collaborative Storytelling and LLM: A Linguistic Analysis of Automatically-Generated Role-Playing Game Sessions [55.2480439325792]
  Role-playing games (RPG) are games in which players interact with one another to create narratives.<n>This emerging form of shared narrative, primarily oral, is receiving increasing attention.<n>In this paper, we aim to discover to what extent the language of Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit oral or written features when asked to generate an RPG session.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T15:10:47Z)
• Disparities in LLM Reasoning Accuracy and Explanations: A Case Study on African American English [66.97110551643722]
  We investigate dialectal disparities in Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning tasks. We find that LLMs produce less accurate responses and simpler reasoning chains and explanations for AAE inputs. These findings highlight systematic differences in how LLMs process and reason about different language varieties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T05:15:34Z)
• Can LLM Agents Maintain a Persona in Discourse? [3.286711575862228]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as conversational agents, exploiting their capabilities in various sectors such as education, law, medicine, and more. LLMs are often subjected to context-shifting behaviour, resulting in a lack of consistent and interpretable personality-aligned interactions. We show that while LLMs can be guided toward personality-driven dialogue, their ability to maintain personality traits varies significantly depending on the combination of models and discourse settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T14:36:39Z)
• Implicit Causality-biases in humans and LLMs as a tool for benchmarking LLM discourse capabilities [0.0]
  We compare data generated with mono- and multilingual LLMs spanning a range of model sizes with data provided by human participants.<n>We aim to develop a benchmark to assess the capabilities of LLMs with discourse biases as a robust proxy for more general discourse understanding capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T16:07:24Z)
• The Essence of Contextual Understanding in Theory of Mind: A Study on Question Answering with Story Characters [67.61587661660852]
  Theory-of-Mind (ToM) allows humans to understand and interpret the mental states of others. In this paper, we verify the importance of comprehensive contextual understanding about personal backgrounds in ToM. We introduce CharToM benchmark, comprising 1,035 ToM questions based on characters from classic novels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T09:04:45Z)
• Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
  We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing.<n>We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense.<n>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)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Human Behavioral Benchmarking: Numeric Magnitude Comparison Effects in Large Language Models [4.412336603162406]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) do not differentially represent numbers, which are pervasive in text. In this work, we investigate how well popular LLMs capture the magnitudes of numbers from a behavioral lens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T07:50:44Z)
• Event knowledge in large language models: the gap between the impossible and the unlikely [46.540380831486125]
  We show that pre-trained large language models (LLMs) possess substantial event knowledge. They almost always assign higher likelihood to possible vs. impossible events. However, they show less consistent preferences for likely vs. unlikely events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-02T23:43:18Z)
• Are Representations Built from the Ground Up? An Empirical Examination of Local Composition in Language Models [91.3755431537592]
  Representing compositional and non-compositional phrases is critical for language understanding. We first formulate a problem of predicting the LM-internal representations of longer phrases given those of their constituents. While we would expect the predictive accuracy to correlate with human judgments of semantic compositionality, we find this is largely not the case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-07T14:21:30Z)
• Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semantics [76.73599166020307]
  We present a systematic empirical analysis across six typologically diverse languages and five different lexical tasks. Our results indicate patterns and best practices that hold universally, but also point to prominent variations across languages and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T14:24:01Z)

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.