PreprintCited by 35Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Language models are not naysayers: an analysis of language models on negation benchmarks

Open access
Truong, Thinh Hung, Baldwin, Timothy, Verspoor, Karin, Cohn, Trevor·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Negation has been shown to be a major bottleneck for masked language models, such as BERT. However, whether this finding still holds for larger-sized auto-regressive language models (``LLMs'') has not been studied comprehensively. With the ever-increasing volume of research and applications of LLMs, we take a step back to evaluate the ability of current-generation LLMs to handle negation, a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that is central to language understanding. We evaluate different LLMs -- including the open-source GPT-neo, GPT-3, and InstructGPT -- against a wide range of negation benchmarks. Through systematic experimentation with varying model sizes and prompts, we show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.08189

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • LLMs often struggle with constraints involving numbers, negations, or long instructions with large number of constraints.

    “A qualitative examination of responses with unsatisfied constraints suggests that LLMs often struggle with constraints involving numbers, negations, or long instructions with large number of constraints , which is consistent with findings from previous works (Sui et al., 2024; García-Ferrero et al., 2023; Truong et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Truong, T. H., Baldwin, T., Verspoor, K., & Cohn, T.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
101-114
OpenAlex
W4385718075
Cited by
34
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4
FWCI
6.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government (LE170100200)
  • University of Melbourne (LE170100200)
  • Australian Research Council (ICI70200030, LE170100200)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
negation, large language models, word meaning, prompt sensitivity, model size, GPT-3, masked language models, natural language understanding

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