I am a Strange Dataset: Metalinguistic Tests for Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the use of metalinguistic tests to evaluate language models
- Introduces a dataset called "I am a Strange Dataset" with unique challenges for language models
- Examines the performance of large language models on various metalinguistic tasks
Plain English Explanation
This paper investigates the use of metalinguistic tests to assess the capabilities of language models. The researchers created a dataset called "I am a Strange Dataset" that presents unique challenges for language models, such as understanding the meaning of ambiguous or nonsensical statements.
The goal of this research is to go beyond the typical language modeling tasks, like predicting the next word in a sentence, and instead focus on a model's deeper understanding of language. The metalinguistic tests in the dataset measure a model's ability to recognize grammatical errors, understand figurative language, and identify logical inconsistencies.
By evaluating large language models on these more advanced linguistic tasks, the researchers aim to gain insights into the models' true language understanding capabilities and limitations. This information can help guide the development of more robust and capable language models in the future.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces the "I am a Strange Dataset," which contains a variety of metalinguistic tasks designed to probe the language understanding capabilities of large language models. These tasks include:
- Grammaticality Judgment: Determining whether a sentence is grammatically correct or not.
- Metaphor Identification: Identifying whether a statement contains a metaphorical or literal meaning.
- Logical Consistency: Judging whether a statement is logically consistent or not.
- Word Order: Identifying whether the words in a sentence are in the correct order.
The researchers evaluate the performance of several large language models, including GPT-2, GPT-3, and T5, on these metalinguistic tasks. The results show that while the models perform well on standard language modeling tasks, they struggle with the more complex metalinguistic challenges presented in the dataset.
The authors argue that these metalinguistic tests provide a more nuanced and comprehensive assessment of a language model's true understanding of language, beyond just the ability to predict the next word in a sequence. The insights gained from this research can inform the development of more robust and capable language models in the future.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises several important points regarding the limitations of current large language models and the need for more advanced evaluation techniques. The authors acknowledge that while these models have achieved impressive results on standard language tasks, their performance on the metalinguistic tests in the "I am a Strange Dataset" highlights significant gaps in their language understanding capabilities.
One potential limitation of the study is the relatively small size of the dataset, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the authors do not discuss the potential biases or biases that may be present in the dataset itself, which could influence the models' performance.
Despite these caveats, the research presented in this paper is a valuable contribution to the field of language model evaluation. By expanding beyond traditional language modeling tasks and focusing on more nuanced metalinguistic abilities, the authors have provided a framework for assessing the true language understanding capabilities of these models.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates the importance of going beyond standard language modeling tasks and using more advanced metalinguistic tests to evaluate the capabilities of large language models. The "I am a Strange Dataset" introduced in this research provides a valuable tool for probing the language understanding abilities of these models and uncovering their limitations.
The insights gained from this work can inform the development of more robust and capable language models in the future, with the ultimate goal of creating AI systems that can truly understand and engage with language in a more human-like way.
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
0
I am a Strange Dataset: Metalinguistic Tests for Language Models
Tristan Thrush, Jared Moore, Miguel Monares, Christopher Potts, Douwe Kiela
Statements involving metalinguistic self-reference (This paper has six sections.) are prevalent in many domains. Can current large language models (LLMs) handle such language? In this paper, we present I am a Strange Dataset, a new dataset for addressing this question. There are two subtasks: generation and verification. In generation, models continue statements like The penultimate word in this sentence is (where a correct continuation is is). In verification, models judge the truth of statements like The penultimate word in this sentence is sentence. (false). We also provide minimally different metalinguistic non-self-reference examples to complement the main dataset by probing for whether models can handle metalinguistic language at all. The dataset is hand-crafted by experts and validated by non-expert annotators. We test a variety of open-source LLMs (7B to 70B parameters) as well as closed-source LLMs through APIs. All models perform close to chance across both subtasks and even on the non-self-referential metalinguistic control data, though we find some steady improvement with model scale. GPT 4 is the only model to consistently do significantly better than chance, and it is still only in the 60% range, while our untrained human annotators score well in the 89-93% range. The dataset and evaluation toolkit are available at https://github.com/TristanThrush/i-am-a-strange-dataset.
Read more8/9/2024
0
Auditing Large Language Models for Enhanced Text-Based Stereotype Detection and Probing-Based Bias Evaluation
Zekun Wu, Sahan Bulathwela, Maria Perez-Ortiz, Adriano Soares Koshiyama
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly increased their presence in human-facing Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. However, LLMs could reproduce and even exacerbate stereotypical outputs from training data. This work introduces the Multi-Grain Stereotype (MGS) dataset, encompassing 51,867 instances across gender, race, profession, religion, and stereotypical text, collected by fusing multiple previously publicly available stereotype detection datasets. We explore different machine learning approaches aimed at establishing baselines for stereotype detection, and fine-tune several language models of various architectures and model sizes, presenting in this work a series of stereotypes classifier models for English text trained on MGS. To understand whether our stereotype detectors capture relevant features (aligning with human common sense) we utilise a variety of explanainable AI tools, including SHAP, LIME, and BertViz, and analyse a series of example cases discussing the results. Finally, we develop a series of stereotype elicitation prompts and evaluate the presence of stereotypes in text generation tasks with popular LLMs, using one of our best performing previously presented stereotypes detectors. Our experiments yielded several key findings: i) Training stereotype detectors in a multi-dimension setting yields better results than training multiple single-dimension classifiers.ii) The integrated MGS Dataset enhances both the in-dataset and cross-dataset generalisation ability of stereotype detectors compared to using the datasets separately. iii) There is a reduction in stereotypes in the content generated by GPT Family LLMs with newer versions.
Read more4/3/2024
0
Reasoning or Simply Next Token Prediction? A Benchmark for Stress-Testing Large Language Models
Wentian Wang, Paul Kantor, Jacob Feldman, Lazaros Gallos, Hao Wang
We propose MMLU-SR, a novel dataset designed to measure the true comprehension abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by challenging their performance in question-answering tasks with modified terms. We reasoned that an agent that ``truly'' understands a concept can still evaluate it when key terms are replaced by suitably defined alternate terms, and sought to differentiate such comprehension from mere text replacement. In our study, we modified standardized test questions by replacing a key term with a dummy word along with its definition. The key term could be in the context of questions, answers, or both questions and answers. Notwithstanding the high scores achieved by recent popular LLMs on the MMLU leaderboard, we found a substantial reduction in model performance after such replacement, suggesting poor comprehension. This new benchmark provides a rigorous benchmark for testing true model comprehension, and poses a challenge to the broader scientific community.
Read more6/26/2024
0
METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluation
Rishav Hada, Varun Gumma, Mohamed Ahmed, Kalika Bali, Sunayana Sitaram
With the rising human-like precision of Large Language Models (LLMs) in numerous tasks, their utilization in a variety of real-world applications is becoming more prevalent. Several studies have shown that LLMs excel on many standard NLP benchmarks. However, it is challenging to evaluate LLMs due to test dataset contamination and the limitations of traditional metrics. Since human evaluations are difficult to collect, there is a growing interest in the community to use LLMs themselves as reference-free evaluators for subjective metrics. However, past work has shown that LLM-based evaluators can exhibit bias and have poor alignment with human judgments. In this study, we propose a framework for an end-to-end assessment of LLMs as evaluators in multilingual scenarios. We create a carefully curated dataset, covering 10 languages containing native speaker judgments for the task of summarization. This dataset is created specifically to evaluate LLM-based evaluators, which we refer to as meta-evaluation (METAL). We compare the performance of LLM-based evaluators created using GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, and PaLM2. Our results indicate that LLM-based evaluators based on GPT-4 perform the best across languages, while GPT-3.5-Turbo performs poorly. Additionally, we perform an analysis of the reasoning provided by LLM-based evaluators and find that it often does not match the reasoning provided by human judges.
Read more4/3/2024