CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The Two Word Test: A Semantic Benchmark for Large Language Models

Riccardi, Nicholas, Desai, Rutvik H.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.04610arXiv 2306.04610
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities recently, including passing advanced professional exams and demanding benchmark tests. This performance has led many to suggest that they are close to achieving humanlike or 'true' understanding of language, and even Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Here, we provide a new open-source benchmark that can assess semantic abilities of LLMs using two-word phrases using a task that can be performed relatively easily by humans without advanced training. Combining multiple words into a single concept is a fundamental aspect of human language and intelligence. The test requires meaningfulness judgments of 1768 noun-noun combinations that have been rated as meaningful (e.g., baby boy) or not meaningful (e.g., goat sky). by 150 human raters. We provide versions of the task that probe meaningfulness ratings on a 0-4 scale as well as binary judgments. We conducted a series of experiments using the TWT on GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard, with both versions. Results demonstrated that, compared to humans, all models perform poorly at rating meaningfulness of these phrases. GPT-3.5 and Bard are also unable to make binary discriminations between sensible and nonsense phrases as making sense. GPT-4 makes a substantial improvement in binary discrimination of combinatorial phrases but is still significantly worse than human performance. The TWT can be used to understand the limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs, and potentially improve them. The test also reminds us that caution is warranted in attributing 'true understanding' or AGI to LLMs. TWT is available at: https://github.com/NickRiccardi/two-word-test

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.2306.04610

Cites

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?

  • GPT-4 shows significant improvements, but its performance is still significantly lower than that of humans.

    “GPT-4 shows significant improvements, but its performance is still significantly lower than that of humans.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [166]

  • GPT-3.5 and Bard cannot distinguish between meaningful and nonsense phrases, consistently classifying highly nonsense phrases as meaningful.

    “Furthermore, GPT-3.5 and Bard cannot distinguish between meaningful and nonsense phrases, consistently classifying highly nonsense phrases as meaningful.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [166]

  • LLMs exhibit restricted proficiency in discerning semantic similarity between events and demonstrate substandard performance in evaluating fundamental phrases.

    “LLMs exhibit restricted proficiency in discerning semantic similarity between events [184] and demonstrate substandard performance in evaluating fundamental phrases [166].”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [166]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Bommasani, R. et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. (2021) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2108. 07258. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A. & Schwarcz, D. B. ChatGPT goes to law school. SSRN J. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 43359 05 (2023). · DOI
  3. Kung, T. H. et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health 2, e0000198 (2023).
  4. Brown, T. B. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. (2020) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2005. 14165. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chowdhery, A. et al. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with pathways. (2022) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2204. 02311. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bubeck, S. et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. (2023) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2303. 12712. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Michael, J. et al. What Do NLP Researchers Believe? Results of the NLP Community Metasurvey. (2022) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2208. 12852. · DOI
  8. Mitchell, M. & Krakauer, D. C. The debate over understanding in AI's large language models. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2215907120 (2023).
  9. Raunak, V., Menezes, A. & Junczys-Dowmunt, M. The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translation. in Pro- ceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 1172-1183 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 18653/ v1/ 2021. naacl-main. 92. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Mahowald, K. et al. Dissociating language and thought in large language models. (2023) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2301. 06627. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Choudhury, S. R., Rogers, A. & Augenstein, I. Machine Reading, Fast and Slow: When Do Models 'Understand' Language? (2022) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2209. 07430. · DOI
  12. Gardner, M. et al. Competency problems: On finding and removing artifacts in language data. (2021) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2104. 08646. · DOI
  13. Linzen, T. How can we accelerate progress towards human-like linguistic generalization? (2020) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2005. 00955. · DOI
  14. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. Preprint at https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 1301. 3781 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Pennington, J., Socher, R. & Manning, C. Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation. in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) 1532-1543 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Doha, Qatar, 2014). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3115/ v1/ D14-1162. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Roller, S. & Erk, K. Relations such as Hypernymy: Identifying and Exploiting Hearst Patterns in Distributional Vectors for Lexical Entailment. in Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2163-2172 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Austin, Texas, 2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 18653/ v1/ D16-1234. · DOI
  17. Srivastava, A. et al. Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. (2022) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2206. 04615. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Dziri, N. et al. Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality. (2023) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2305. 18654. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Bian, N. et al. ChatGPT is a Knowledgeable but Inexperienced Solver: An Investigation of Commonsense Problem in Large Lan- guage Models. (2023) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2303. 16421. · DOI
  20. Koralus, P. & Wang-Maścianica, V. Humans in Humans Out: On GPT Converging Toward Common Sense in both Success and Failure. (2023) https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ ARXIV. 2303. 17276. · DOI
  21. Qin, C. et al. Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 1339-1384 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 18653/ v1/ 2023. emnlp-main. 85. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models

    Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works

    “Our key point is that evaluation should be treated as an essential discipline to drive the success of LLMs and other AI models .”
    Background

Authors
Riccardi, N., & Desai, R. H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.04610
arXiv
2306.04610
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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