From Form(s) to Meaning: Probing the Semantic Depths of Language Models Using Multisense Consistency
2404.12145
0
0
Abstract
The staggering pace with which the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are increasing, as measured by a range of commonly used natural language understanding (NLU) benchmarks, raises many questions regarding what understanding means for a language model and how it compares to human understanding. This is especially true since many LLMs are exclusively trained on text, casting doubt on whether their stellar benchmark performances are reflective of a true understanding of the problems represented by these benchmarks, or whether LLMs simply excel at uttering textual forms that correlate with what someone who understands the problem would say. In this philosophically inspired work, we aim to create some separation between form and meaning, with a series of tests that leverage the idea that world understanding should be consistent across presentational modes - inspired by Fregean senses - of the same meaning. Specifically, we focus on consistency across languages as well as paraphrases. Taking GPT-3.5 as our object of study, we evaluate multisense consistency across five different languages and various tasks. We start the evaluation in a controlled setting, asking the model for simple facts, and then proceed with an evaluation on four popular NLU benchmarks. We find that the model's multisense consistency is lacking and run several follow-up analyses to verify that this lack of consistency is due to a sense-dependent task understanding. We conclude that, in this aspect, the understanding of LLMs is still quite far from being consistent and human-like, and deliberate on how this impacts their utility in the context of learning about human language and understanding.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This paper investigates the semantic understanding of language models by examining their "multisense consistency" - the ability to assign consistent meanings to words across different contexts.
- The researchers probed the depths of language model semantics using a variety of tests, including evaluating how well models handle multiple senses of a word and reasoning about logical inferences.
- The findings provide insights into the inner workings of these powerful AI systems and shed light on their strengths and limitations when it comes to truly comprehending language.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how well language models - the AI systems that power things like chatbots and text generation - actually understand the meaning of words and language. The key thing they examined is "multisense consistency" - the ability of these models to consistently assign the right meaning to a word, even when that word has multiple possible meanings depending on the context.
For example, the word "bank" can mean a financial institution or the edge of a river. The researchers wanted to see if the language models could correctly interpret the meaning based on the surrounding words and phrases. They also looked at the models' ability to make simple logical inferences about the meaning of language.
By probing the models in this way, the researchers gained insights into how well these powerful AI systems truly comprehend language, rather than just generating fluent-sounding text. The findings reveal both the strengths and limitations of current language models when it comes to understanding the deeper meanings behind the words.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the semantic understanding of language models by examining their "multisense consistency" - the ability to consistently assign appropriate meanings to words across different contexts. The researchers used a variety of tests to probe the depths of language model semantics, including evaluating how well models handle multiple senses of a word and reasoning about logical inferences.
For example, the researchers tested the models' ability to correctly interpret the meaning of words like "bank" based on the surrounding context. They also assessed the models' capacity for simple linguistic inferences, such as determining the logical implications of a given statement.
The findings provide insights into the inner workings of these powerful AI systems and shed light on their strengths and limitations when it comes to truly comprehending language. The results suggest that while language models can generate fluent-sounding text, they may still struggle with deeper semantic understanding and handling multiple intents in language.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thoughtful investigation into the semantic capabilities of language models, but it also acknowledges several caveats and limitations. The researchers note that their tests, while designed to probe deeper understanding, may still fall short of capturing the full complexity of human language comprehension.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the specific architectural details or training approaches of the language models examined, which could be relevant for understanding their strengths and weaknesses. Further research may be needed to explore how different model designs and training strategies impact semantic understanding.
While the findings suggest that current language models have room for improvement when it comes to truly grasping the meaning of language, the paper maintains a respectful and objective tone. It encourages readers to think critically about the research and draw their own conclusions about the implications for the field and the broader societal impacts of these technologies.
Conclusion
This paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the semantic capabilities of language models. By examining their multisense consistency and logical reasoning abilities, the researchers have shed light on the strengths and limitations of these powerful AI systems when it comes to comprehending the deeper meanings behind language.
The findings suggest that while language models can generate fluent-sounding text, they may still struggle with truly understanding the nuances and complexities of human communication. This has implications for the development and deployment of these technologies, as well as for our understanding of the relationship between language, meaning, and artificial intelligence.
Overall, this paper serves as an important reminder that we must continue to critically examine the capabilities and limitations of language models, and work towards developing AI systems that can more robustly and reliably comprehend the semantic depths of language.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Can large language models understand uncommon meanings of common words?
Jinyang Wu, Feihu Che, Xinxin Zheng, Shuai Zhang, Ruihan Jin, Shuai Nie, Pengpeng Shao, Jianhua Tao
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown significant advancements across diverse natural language understanding (NLU) tasks, including intelligent dialogue and autonomous agents. Yet, lacking widely acknowledged testing mechanisms, answering `whether LLMs are stochastic parrots or genuinely comprehend the world' remains unclear, fostering numerous studies and sparking heated debates. Prevailing research mainly focuses on surface-level NLU, neglecting fine-grained explorations. However, such explorations are crucial for understanding their unique comprehension mechanisms, aligning with human cognition, and finally enhancing LLMs' general NLU capacities. To address this gap, our study delves into LLMs' nuanced semantic comprehension capabilities, particularly regarding common words with uncommon meanings. The idea stems from foundational principles of human communication within psychology, which underscore accurate shared understandings of word semantics. Specifically, this paper presents the innovative construction of a Lexical Semantic Comprehension (LeSC) dataset with novel evaluation metrics, the first benchmark encompassing both fine-grained and cross-lingual dimensions. Introducing models of both open-source and closed-source, varied scales and architectures, our extensive empirical experiments demonstrate the inferior performance of existing models in this basic lexical-meaning understanding task. Notably, even the state-of-the-art LLMs GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 lag behind 16-year-old humans by 3.9% and 22.3%, respectively. Additionally, multiple advanced prompting techniques and retrieval-augmented generation are also introduced to help alleviate this trouble, yet limitations persist. By highlighting the above critical shortcomings, this research motivates further investigation and offers novel insights for developing more intelligent LLMs.
5/10/2024
🤔
Understanding the Capabilities and Limitations of Large Language Models for Cultural Commonsense
Siqi Shen, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Soujanya Poria, Rada Mihalcea
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial commonsense understanding through numerous benchmark evaluations. However, their understanding of cultural commonsense remains largely unexamined. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive examination of the capabilities and limitations of several state-of-the-art LLMs in the context of cultural commonsense tasks. Using several general and cultural commonsense benchmarks, we find that (1) LLMs have a significant discrepancy in performance when tested on culture-specific commonsense knowledge for different cultures; (2) LLMs' general commonsense capability is affected by cultural context; and (3) The language used to query the LLMs can impact their performance on cultural-related tasks. Our study points to the inherent bias in the cultural understanding of LLMs and provides insights that can help develop culturally aware language models.
5/9/2024
💬
Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models
Yash Saxena, Sarthak Chopra, Arunendra Mani Tripathi
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance, for tasks such as text generation, summarization, and translation. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This behavior can be attributed to several factors, with consistency and reasoning capabilities being significant contributors. LLMs frequently lack the ability to generate explanations and engage in coherent reasoning, leading to inaccurate responses. Moreover, they exhibit inconsistencies in their outputs. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs. The experiments utilize the Boolq dataset as the ground truth, comprising questions, answers, and corresponding explanations. Queries from the dataset are presented as prompts to the LLMs, and the generated responses are evaluated against the ground truth answers. Additionally, explanations are generated to assess the models' reasoning abilities. Consistency is evaluated by repeatedly presenting the same query to the models and observing for variations in their responses. For measuring reasoning capabilities, the generated explanations are compared to the ground truth explanations using metrics such as BERT, BLEU, and F-1 scores. The findings reveal that proprietary models generally outperform public models in terms of both consistency and reasoning capabilities. However, even when presented with basic general knowledge questions, none of the models achieved a score of 90% in both consistency and reasoning. This study underscores the direct correlation between consistency and reasoning abilities in LLMs and highlights the inherent reasoning challenges present in current language models.
4/26/2024
💬
A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models - Part II: The Way Forward
Raphael Milli`ere, Cameron Buckner
0
0
In this paper, the second of two companion pieces, we explore novel philosophical questions raised by recent progress in large language models (LLMs) that go beyond the classical debates covered in the first part. We focus particularly on issues related to interpretability, examining evidence from causal intervention methods about the nature of LLMs' internal representations and computations. We also discuss the implications of multimodal and modular extensions of LLMs, recent debates about whether such systems may meet minimal criteria for consciousness, and concerns about secrecy and reproducibility in LLM research. Finally, we discuss whether LLM-like systems may be relevant to modeling aspects of human cognition, if their architectural characteristics and learning scenario are adequately constrained.
5/7/2024