How Hypocritical Is Your LLM judge? Listener-Speaker Asymmetries in the Pragmatic Competence of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15873v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:22:16 GMT
• Title: How Hypocritical Is Your LLM judge? Listener-Speaker Asymmetries in the Pragmatic Competence of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We compare large language models' performance as pragmatic listeners, judging the appropriateness of linguistic outputs, and as pragmatic speakers, generating pragmatically appropriate language.<n>We find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation: many models perform substantially better as listeners than as speakers.<n>Our results suggest that pragmatic judging and pragmatic generation are only weakly aligned in current LLMs, calling for more integrated evaluation practices.
• Score: 11.377209224797541
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied as repositories of linguistic knowledge. In this line of work, models are commonly evaluated both as generators of language and as judges of linguistic output, yet these two roles are rarely examined in direct relation to one another. As a result, it remains unclear whether success in one role aligns with success in the other. In this paper, we address this question for pragmatic competence by comparing LLMs' performance as pragmatic listeners, judging the appropriateness of linguistic outputs, and as pragmatic speakers, generating pragmatically appropriate language. We evaluate multiple open-weight and proprietary LLMs across three pragmatic settings. We find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation: many models perform substantially better as listeners than as speakers. Our results suggest that pragmatic judging and pragmatic generation are only weakly aligned in current LLMs, calling for more integrated evaluation practices.

Related papers

• Think Natively: Unlocking Multilingual Reasoning with Consistency-Enhanced Reinforcement Learning [85.7304930030649]
  We propose M-Thinker, which is trained by a Language Consistency reward and a Cross-lingual Thinking Alignment reward.<n>M-Thinker achieves nearly 100% language consistency and superior performance on two multilingual benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T17:55:02Z)
• On the Same Wavelength? Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models across Broad Concepts [69.69818198773244]
  We study a range of LMs on both language comprehension and language production.<n>We find that state-of-the-art LMs, but not smaller ones, achieve strong performance on language comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:59:32Z)
• The Pragmatic Mind of Machines: Tracing the Emergence of Pragmatic Competence in Large Language Models [6.187227278086245]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated emerging capabilities in social intelligence, including implicature resolution and theory-of-mind reasoning.<n>In this work, we evaluate whether LLMs at different training stages can accurately infer speaker intentions.<n>We systematically evaluate 22 LLMs across 3 key training stages: after pre-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and preference optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T04:24:59Z)
• Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models? [59.970391602080205]
  Despite multilingual training, LRMs tend to default to reasoning in high-resource languages at test time.<n>Cultural reasoning degrades performance on reasoning tasks but benefits cultural tasks, while safety evaluations exhibit language-specific behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T02:46:18Z)
• Are LLMs good pragmatic speakers? [3.4113474745671923]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on data assumed to include natural language pragmatics, but do they actually behave like pragmatic speakers? We attempt to answer this question using the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework, which models pragmatic reasoning in human communication. We find that while scores from the LLM have some positive correlation with those from RSA, there isn't sufficient evidence to claim that it behaves like a pragmatic speaker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T13:23:18Z)
• Assessing Dialect Fairness and Robustness of Large Language Models in Reasoning Tasks [68.33068005789116]
  We introduce ReDial, a benchmark containing 1.2K+ parallel query pairs in Standardized English and AAVE.<n>We evaluate widely used models, including GPT, Claude, Llama, Mistral, and the Phi model families.<n>Our work establishes a systematic and objective framework for analyzing LLM bias in dialectal queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T18:44:23Z)
• 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)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Evaluating statistical language models as pragmatic reasoners [39.72348730045737]
  We evaluate the capacity of large language models to infer meanings of pragmatic utterances. We find that LLMs can derive context-grounded, human-like distributions over the interpretations of several complex pragmatic utterances. Results inform the inferential capacity of statistical language models, and their use in pragmatic and semantic parsing applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T18:22:10Z)
• The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMs [26.118193748582197]
  We evaluate four categories of widely used state-of-the-art models. We find that, despite only evaluating on utterances that require a binary inference, models in three of these categories perform close to random. These results suggest that certain fine-tuning strategies are far better at inducing pragmatic understanding in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T19:04:23Z)
• The Better Your Syntax, the Better Your Semantics? Probing Pretrained Language Models for the English Comparative Correlative [7.03497683558609]
  Construction Grammar (CxG) is a paradigm from cognitive linguistics emphasising the connection between syntax and semantics. We present an investigation of their capability to classify and understand one of the most commonly studied constructions, the English comparative correlative (CC) Our results show that all three investigated PLMs are able to recognise the structure of the CC but fail to use its meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T13:01:24Z)

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.