CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguity

Open access
Liu, Alisa, Wu, Zhaofeng, Michael, Julian, Suhr, Alane, West, Peter, Koller, Alexander, Swayamdipta, Swabha, Smith, Noah A. +1 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2304.14399arXiv 2304.14399
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Ambiguity is an intrinsic feature of natural language. Managing ambiguity is a key part of human language understanding, allowing us to anticipate misunderstanding as communicators and revise our interpretations as listeners. As language models (LMs) are increasingly employed as dialogue interfaces and writing aids, handling ambiguous language is critical to their success. We characterize ambiguity in a sentence by its effect on entailment relations with another sentence, and collect AmbiEnt, a linguist-annotated benchmark of 1,645 examples with diverse kinds of ambiguity. We design a suite of tests based on AmbiEnt, presenting the first evaluation of pretrained LMs to recognize ambiguity and disentangle possible meanings. We find that the task remains extremely challenging, including for GPT-4, whose generated disambiguations are considered correct only 32% of the time in human evaluation, compared to 90% for disambiguations in our dataset. Finally, to illustrate the value of ambiguity-sensitive tools, we show that a multilabel NLI model can flag political claims in the wild that are misleading due to ambiguity. We encourage the field to rediscover the importance of ambiguity for NLP.

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.2304.14399

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Liu et al. introduced AmbiEnt, a natural language inference benchmark, which revealed that understanding ambiguous statements is still a challenge even to state-of-the-art LLMs.

    “Liu et al. [49] introduced AmbiEnt, a natural language inference benchmark, which revealed that understanding ambiguous statements is still a challenge even to the state-of-the-art LLMs.”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

  • User queries are often ambiguous and underspecified, making it challenging for LLMs to generate a satisfactory response in a single attempt.

    “User queries are often ambiguous and underspecified (Liu et al., 2023), making it challenging for LLMs to generate a satisfactory response in a single attempt.”

    From User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2023

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: 37

  1. Pangbo Ban, Yifan Jiang, Tianran Liu, and Shane Steinert-Threlkeld. 2022. Testing pre-trained lan- guage models' understanding of distributivity via causal mediation analysis. In Proceedings of the Fifth BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and In- terpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 314-324, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Beata Beigman Klebanov and Eyal Beigman. 2009. From annotator agreement to noise models. Com- putational Linguistics, 35(4):495-503. · DOI
  3. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Andrew Carnie. 2013. Syntax: A Generative Introduc- tion. Introducing Linguistics. Wiley.
  5. Jifan Chen, Aniruddh Sriram, Eunsol Choi, and Greg Durrett. 2022. Generating literal and implied sub- questions to fact-check complex claims. In Proceed- ings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3495-3516, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Tongfei Chen, Zhengping Jiang, Adam Poliak, Keisuke Sakaguchi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2020. Un- certain natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8772-8779, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  7. Kenneth Church and Ramesh Patil. 1982. Coping with syntactic ambiguity or how to put the block in the box on the table. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8(3-4):139-149.
  8. Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. RealToxi- cityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356-3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Mitchell L. Gordon, Michelle S. Lam, Joon Sung Park, Kayur Patel, Jeff Hancock, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2022. Jury learning: Integrat- ing dissenting voices into machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machin- ery. · DOI
  10. Barbara J. Grosz. 1977. The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding. Ph.D. thesis.
  11. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. The curious case of neural text de- generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  12. Paloma Jeretic, Alex Warstadt, Suvrat Bhooshan, and Adina Williams. 2020. Are natural language infer- ence models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8690-8705, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  13. Nan-Jiang Jiang and Marie-Catherine de Marneffe. 2022. Investigating Reasons for Disagreement in Natural Language Inference. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1357- 1374. · DOI
  14. Kate Kearns. 2000. Semantics. St. Martin's Press.
  15. Alexander Koller, Michaela Regneri, and Stefan Thater. 2008. Regular tree grammars as a formalism for scope underspecification. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 218-226, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  16. Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, Egor Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. 2022. Assistance with large language models. In Proceedings of the ML Safety Workshop at NeurIPS.
  17. Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Clam: Selective clarification for ambiguous ques- tions with generative language models. In Proceed- ings of the Workshop on Challenges in Deployable Generative AI at International Conference on Ma- chine Learning (ICML).
  18. Mina Lee, Percy Liang, and Qian Yang. 2022. Coauthor: Designing a human-AI collaborative writing dataset for exploring language model capabilities. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022. WANLI: Worker and AI collabora- tion for natural language inference dataset creation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 6826-6847, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
  20. Johannes Mario Meissner, Napat Thumwanit, Saku Sug- awara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2021. Embracing ambi- guity: Shifting the training target of NLI models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 862-869, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  21. Sewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. AmbigQA: Answering am- biguous open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5783- 5797, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  22. Yixin Nie, Xiang Zhou, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. What can we learn from collective human opinions on nat- ural language inference data? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9131-9143, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  23. Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski. 2019. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. Transac- tions of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 7:677-694. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sandro Pezzelle. 2023. Dealing with semantic under- specification in multimodal NLP. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12098-12112, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  25. Steven T. Piantadosi, Harry Tily, and Edward Gibson. 2012. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3):280-291. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Barbara Plank. 2022. The "problem" of human label variation: On ground truth in data, modeling and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 10671-10682, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Maarten Sap, Swabha Swayamdipta, Laura Vianna, Xuhui Zhou, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2022. Annotators with attitudes: How annotator beliefs and identities bias toxic language detection. In Pro- ceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5884-5906, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  28. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3407- 3412, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lewis Thomas. 1974. The lives of a cell. Notes of a biology watcher, New york (The Viking Press) 1974.
  30. Alexandra Uma, Tommaso Fornaciari, Anca Dumi- trache, Tristan Miller, Jon Chamberlain, Barbara Plank, Edwin Simpson, and Massimo Poesio. 2021. SemEval-2021 task 12: Learning with disagreements. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2021), pages 338- 347, Online. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI
  31. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for nat- ural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Yuewei Yuan, Chaitanya Malaviya, and Mark Yatskar. 2023. AmbiCoref: Evaluating human and model sen- sitivity to ambiguous coreference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1023-1030, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  34. Sheng Zhang, Rachel Rudinger, Kevin Duh, and Ben- jamin Van Durme. 2017. Ordinal common-sense inference. Transactions of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 5:379-395. · DOI
  35. Shujian Zhang, Chengyue Gong, and Eunsol Choi. 2021. Learning with different amounts of annotation: From zero to many labels. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 7620-7632, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  36. Xinliang Frederick Zhang and Marie-Catherine de Marneffe. 2021. Identifying inherent disagree- ment in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4908-4915, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  37. Xiang Zhou, Yixin Nie, and Mohit Bansal. 2022. Dis- tributed NLI: Learning to predict human opinion dis- tributions for language reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 972-987, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, A., Wu, Z., Michael, J., Suhr, A., West, P., Koller, A., Swayamdipta, S., Smith, N. A., & Choi, Y.
Affiliations
  • Saarland University (DE)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2304.14399
arXiv
2304.14399
OpenAlex
W4367369801
Cited by
3
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-19-2-4031, N66001-19)
  • Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
linguistic ambiguity, ambiguity detection, logical consequence, pre-trained language models, ambiguity resolution, GPT-4

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