Do Large Language Models Understand Conversational Implicature -- A case study with a chinese sitcom

Overview

• Introduces SwordsmanImp, a new Chinese multi-turn dialogue dataset focused on conversational implicature
• Tests the ability of large language models (LLMs) to understand and explain implicatures
• Finds that GPT-4 achieves human-level accuracy on multiple-choice questions about implicatures, while other models perform worse
• Reveals that most LLMs struggle to provide satisfactory explanations of the implicatures, except for GPT-4

Plain English Explanation

Conversations involve more than just the literal meaning of the words used. People often imply or suggest things without directly stating them. This concept, known as "conversational implicature," is an important aspect of human-like communication that large language models need to master.

In this study, the researchers created a new dataset called SwordsmanImp, which contains 200 dialogues from a Chinese sitcom. Each dialogue includes a question about the implicature, and the researchers annotated which of the Gricean maxims were violated to create the implicature.

The researchers then tested several popular LLMs, including GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, on two tasks: multiple-choice questions about the implicatures and generating explanations for the implicatures. The results showed that GPT-4 achieved human-level accuracy on the multiple-choice task, while other models performed significantly worse.

However, when it came to explaining the implicatures, most LLMs struggled to provide satisfactory explanations, except for GPT-4. This suggests that while some LLMs can identify implicatures, they have difficulty understanding and articulating the reasoning behind them.

The researchers also found that the LLMs' performance did not vary significantly based on the specific Gricean maxim violated, indicating that they do not seem to process implicatures derived from different maxims differently.

Technical Explanation

The researchers introduced SwordsmanImp, a new Chinese multi-turn dialogue dataset focused on conversational implicature. The dataset was sourced from dialogues in the Chinese sitcom "My Own Swordsman" and includes 200 carefully handcrafted questions, all annotated with the Gricean maxims that were violated to create the implicatures.

The researchers tested eight close-source and open-source LLMs on two tasks: a multiple-choice question task and an implicature explanation task. In the multiple-choice task, the models were asked to select the correct implicature from a set of options. In the explanation task, human raters were asked to evaluate the reasonability, logic, and fluency of the explanations generated by the LLMs.

The results showed that GPT-4 attained human-level accuracy (94%) on the multiple-choice task, while CausalLM demonstrated a 78.5% accuracy, following GPT-4. Other models, including GPT-3.5 and several open-source models, performed significantly worse, with accuracies ranging from 20% to 60%.

However, when it came to generating explanations for the implicatures, the researchers found that while all models produced largely fluent and self-consistent text, their explanations scored low on reasonability, except for GPT-4. This suggests that most LLMs cannot produce satisfactory explanations of the implicatures in the conversational context.

Furthermore, the researchers observed that the LLMs' performance did not vary significantly based on the specific Gricean maxim violated, indicating that the models do not seem to process implicatures derived from different maxims differently.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several limitations of their study. First, the dataset is limited to a specific domain (Chinese sitcom dialogues) and may not generalize well to other types of conversations. Additionally, the dataset is relatively small, with only 200 questions, which may not be sufficient to fully capture the complexity of conversational implicature.

Another potential concern is the reliance on human raters to evaluate the quality of the LLMs' explanations. While the researchers attempted to ensure consistency by using multiple raters, human evaluation is inherently subjective and may not provide a completely objective assessment of the models' capabilities.

Furthermore, the study focuses on the performance of LLMs in understanding and explaining implicatures but does not explore their ability to generate implicatures themselves. This could be an important area for future research, as the ability to use implicatures effectively is a key aspect of human-like communication.

Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of understanding conversational implicature for LLMs to become more human-like social communicators. The introduction of the SwordsmanImp dataset and the evaluation of several LLMs on implicature tasks provide valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of these models.

The findings suggest that while some LLMs, like GPT-4, can achieve human-level accuracy in identifying implicatures, most struggle to provide satisfactory explanations for the underlying reasoning. This suggests that there is still room for improvement in the field of pragmatic reasoning for large language models.

As the development of LLMs continues, it will be important to focus on enhancing their ability to understand and reason about the nuanced and implicit aspects of human communication, such as conversational implicature. This could lead to more natural and effective interactions between humans and AI systems in a variety of applications, from chatbots to virtual assistants.