It is found that LLM belief update understanding lags behind that of humans, especially in more naturally-occurring scenarios, and the first expert-annotated implicature cancellation dataset, ImplicatureX, is created, crowdsourced for human judgements of implicatures and their corresponding cancellations.
Abstract
Human language is driven by unspoken beliefs and belief updates, making these critical to model for successful communication between large language models (LLMs) and their users. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of LLMs to recognize unspoken beliefs made through implicatures and to understand their updates through implicature cancellation: the pragmatic phenomenon whereby an utterance's implied meaning is weakened or negated. We create the first expert-annotated implicature cancellation dataset, ImplicatureX, crowdsourced for human judgements of implicatures and their corresponding cancellations. We find that LLM belief update understanding lags behind that of humans, especially in more naturally-occurring scenarios. Additional control experiments suggest that successes in LLM belief updates may stem in part from a reliance on prior beliefs, and that failures in belief updates may depend on their type and on their form. Overall, our study suggests that current LLMs have not yet reached human-level understanding of unspoken beliefs and belief updates. Code and data are available at https://github.com/cesare-spinoso/ImplicatureX.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judgment assistants and as stand-in participants in psychology experiments, yet little is known about how much their probability estimates move in response to a single new piece of information. We pair premise-hypothesis items from $\delta$-SNLI with one strengthene...
There is significant uncertainty about whether abstractions like beliefs or desires usefully describe the behavior of large language models (LLMs). In addition to the inherent scientific interest of this question, these latent quantities are often invoked to explain the behavior of LLMs to users or to define and evalua...
Large language models increasingly produce and interpret verbal probability expressions, yet whether these expressions carry consistent meaning across models (or match human perceptions of uncertainty) remains unknown. We present a systematic cross-model evaluation using a word-to-number mapping task grounded in establ...
Christos Petridis, Konstantinos Pelechrinis, Z. Obradovic· 1 citation· ⚡1
Conversational large language models (LLMs) modify their answers based on the language and context that users provide. This modification enhances coherence and increases responsiveness. However, linguistic adaptation is not limited to form. In subsequent turns, a system might start to maintain the user's semantic frame...
Hariharasudan Anandhan, Deepika I· Indian Journal of Language a...· 0 citations
Understanding a conversation requires connecting what is said to the speakers'relationships, expectations, and earlier exchanges. Prior work shows that supplying relevant context can improve models'social judgments, but much of this information may already be present in the conversation. This motivates training models...
Cheng-Fei Wu, Zhao-Qing Wu, Dan Goldwasser· 0 citations
When a speaker refers to a scene that the listener cannot directly see, the listener must decide whether to preserve its current understanding or revise it as new utterances arrive. Many language systems treat local mismatch as a cue for updating: divergence from the current understanding encourages adjustment. Yet con...