Probing Large Language Models for Scalar Adjective Lexical Semantics and Scalar Diversity Pragmatics
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to understand the meanings and pragmatic uses of scalar adjectives like "good," "big," and "happy."
- It probes LLMs' knowledge of the lexical semantics and scalar diversity of these adjectives through various experiments.
- The findings provide insights into how well LLMs capture the nuanced usage and connotations of common scalar adjectives.
Plain English Explanation
Scalar adjectives are words like "good," "big," and "happy" that can be used to describe things on a scale or spectrum. For example, something can be "very good," "somewhat big," or "extremely happy." These adjectives are commonly used in everyday language, but their meanings can be quite complex.
The researchers in this paper wanted to see how well large language models, which are AI systems trained on massive amounts of text data, understand the lexical semantics (the core meanings) and scalar diversity (the range of possible uses) of these scalar adjectives. They designed a series of experiments to probe the models' knowledge in this area.
For instance, they tested whether the models correctly recognized that "good" is a more positive term than "okay," or that "huge" implies a larger size than "big." The researchers also examined how the models used these adjectives in different contexts to convey varying degrees of meaning.
Overall, the findings suggest that while LLMs have a decent grasp of the basic meanings of scalar adjectives, they still struggle to fully capture the nuanced ways these words are used in natural language. This points to opportunities to improve how AI systems understand and use common, but complex, parts of human language.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to capture the lexical semantics and scalar diversity pragmatics of scalar adjectives. Lexical semantics refers to the core meanings of words, while scalar diversity pragmatics encompasses the range of contextual uses and connotations.
The researchers conducted a series of experiments to probe LLMs' knowledge in this area. First, they tested the models' understanding of the scalar relationships between different adjectives (e.g., recognizing that "good" is more positive than "okay"). They also examined how LLMs used scalar adjectives in sentential contexts to convey varying degrees of meaning.
The experiments leveraged a diverse set of scalar adjectives across different semantic domains, including emotional states, physical properties, and evaluations. The researchers evaluated popular LLM architectures like BERT, GPT-2, and GPT-3 on these tasks.
The results indicate that while LLMs display some understanding of the lexical semantics and scalar diversity of these adjectives, there are still notable limitations. The models struggled to fully capture the nuanced, context-dependent ways that scalar adjectives are used in natural language.
The paper's findings suggest opportunities to improve LLM capabilities in understanding the complexities of common, everyday language constructs like scalar adjectives. This could enhance the naturalness and contextual awareness of AI language systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-designed investigation into an important aspect of language understanding for large language models. The researchers thoughtfully constructed a range of experiments to probe the models' knowledge of scalar adjective semantics and pragmatics.
One potential limitation is the reliance on a relatively limited set of scalar adjectives, even though the authors aimed for diversity. Expanding the adjective set further, particularly with more domain-specific or less common examples, could yield additional insights.
Additionally, the paper does not explore potential differences in performance across the various LLM architectures tested. A more in-depth comparative analysis could help identify specific model strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
While the results indicate room for enhancement in LLM understanding of scalar adjectives, the paper does not speculate on the broader implications or practical applications of this research. Discussing potential use cases or ways to incorporate these findings into more natural, context-aware language systems could strengthen the paper's impact.
Overall, the study represents a valuable contribution to the ongoing effort to better understand and improve the language capabilities of large AI models. The findings highlight the need for continued advancements in modeling the nuanced, contextual aspects of human language.
Conclusion
This paper provides a comprehensive investigation into the ability of large language models to capture the lexical semantics and scalar diversity pragmatics of common scalar adjectives. Through a series of thoughtfully designed experiments, the researchers uncovered important insights about the current limitations of LLMs in this area of language understanding.
The results suggest that while LLMs exhibit some knowledge of the core meanings and contextual uses of scalar adjectives, they still struggle to fully capture the nuanced ways these words are employed in natural language. This points to opportunities to enhance the language capabilities of AI systems, ultimately enabling more natural and contextually aware interactions.
Further research building on this work, such as expanding the adjective set and conducting more in-depth comparisons across LLM architectures, could yield additional insights to drive continued progress in this field. Ultimately, improving LLM understanding of complex language constructs like scalar adjectives represents an important step towards more human-like natural language processing in AI.
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
Probing Large Language Models for Scalar Adjective Lexical Semantics and Scalar Diversity Pragmatics
Fangru Lin, Daniel Altshuler, Janet B. Pierrehumbert
Scalar adjectives pertain to various domain scales and vary in intensity within each scale (e.g. certain is more intense than likely on the likelihood scale). Scalar implicatures arise from the consideration of alternative statements which could have been made. They can be triggered by scalar adjectives and require listeners to reason pragmatically about them. Some scalar adjectives are more likely to trigger scalar implicatures than others. This phenomenon is referred to as scalar diversity. In this study, we probe different families of Large Language Models such as GPT-4 for their knowledge of the lexical semantics of scalar adjectives and one specific aspect of their pragmatics, namely scalar diversity. We find that they encode rich lexical-semantic information about scalar adjectives. However, the rich lexical-semantic knowledge does not entail a good understanding of scalar diversity. We also compare current models of different sizes and complexities and find that larger models are not always better. Finally, we explain our probing results by leveraging linguistic intuitions and model training objectives.
Read more4/5/2024
🤯
0
Pragmatic inference of scalar implicature by LLMs
Ye-eun Cho, Seong mook Kim
This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), engage in pragmatic inference of scalar implicature, such as some. Two sets of experiments were conducted using cosine similarity and next sentence/token prediction as experimental methods. The results in experiment 1 showed that, both models interpret some as pragmatic implicature not all in the absence of context, aligning with human language processing. In experiment 2, in which Question Under Discussion (QUD) was presented as a contextual cue, BERT showed consistent performance regardless of types of QUDs, while GPT-2 encountered processing difficulties since a certain type of QUD required pragmatic inference for implicature. The findings revealed that, in terms of theoretical approaches, BERT inherently incorporates pragmatic implicature not all within the term some, adhering to Default model (Levinson, 2000). In contrast, GPT-2 seems to encounter processing difficulties in inferring pragmatic implicature within context, consistent with Context-driven model (Sperber and Wilson, 2002).
Read more8/14/2024
0
Pronunciation Assessment with Multi-modal Large Language Models
Kaiqi Fu, Linkai Peng, Nan Yang, Shuran Zhou
Large language models (LLMs), renowned for their powerful conversational abilities, are widely recognized as exceptional tools in the field of education, particularly in the context of automated intelligent instruction systems for language learning. In this paper, we propose a scoring system based on LLMs, motivated by their positive impact on text-related scoring tasks. Specifically, the speech encoder first maps the learner's speech into contextual features. The adapter layer then transforms these features to align with the text embedding in latent space. The assessment task-specific prefix and prompt text are embedded and concatenated with the features generated by the modality adapter layer, enabling the LLMs to predict accuracy and fluency scores. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed scoring systems achieve competitive results compared to the baselines on the Speechocean762 datasets. Moreover, we also conducted an ablation study to better understand the contributions of the prompt text and training strategy in the proposed scoring system.
Read more7/19/2024
💬
0
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, Nesreen K. Ahmed
Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.
Read more7/16/2024