PreprintCited by 61Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Do Neural Language Representations Learn Physical Commonsense?

Open access
Forbes, Maxwell, Holtzman, Ari, Choi, Yejin·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Humans understand language based on the rich background knowledge about how the physical world works, which in turn allows us to reason about the physical world through language. In addition to the properties of objects (e.g., boats require fuel) and their affordances, i.e., the actions that are applicable to them (e.g., boats can be driven), we can also reason about if-then inferences between what properties of objects imply the kind of actions that are applicable to them (e.g., that if we can drive something then it likely requires fuel). In this paper, we investigate the extent to which state-of-the-art neural language representations, trained on a vast amount of natural language text, demonstrate physical commonsense reasoning. While recent advancements of neural language models have demonstrated strong performance on various types of natural language inference tasks, our study based on a dataset of over 200k newly collected annotations suggests that neural language representations still only learn associations that are explicitly written down.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1908.02899

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Probing-classifier studies have tended to be more positive than question-answering studies, often reporting results that suggest LLMs perform well above baseline, though still below humans.

    “These studies have tended to be more positive than those which are based on question answering tasks, often reporting results that suggest the LLMs perform well above baseline, though still below humans.”

    From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [94]

    The Results (p. 5) report good performance on object–property compatibility and performance around human ability on object–affordance compatibility, but also report that models struggle on affordance–property compatibility and score well below humans there. The paper does not compare probing-classifier studies with question-answering studies, and its findings do not support a blanket characterization of model performance as well above baseline but below humans. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Herbelot, A., & Vecchi, E. M. (2015). From concepts to models: some issues in quantifying feature norms. In Lilt (Vol. 2).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forbes, M., Holtzman, A., & Choi, Y.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Pages
1753-1759
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2964895772
Cited by
60
References
21
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1703166, 1637479, 1524371)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-15-1-, W911NF, W911NF-15)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
natural language inference, affordances, object properties, language models, prior knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review