PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

POSQA: Probe the World Models of LLMs with Size Comparisons

Open access

Abstract

Embodied language comprehension emphasizes that language understanding is not solely a matter of mental processing in the brain but also involves interactions with the physical and social environment. With the explosive growth of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their already ubiquitous presence in our daily lives, it is becoming increasingly necessary to verify their real-world understanding. Inspired by cognitive theories, we propose POSQA: a Physical Object Size Question Answering dataset with simple size comparison questions to examine the extremity and analyze the potential mechanisms of the embodied comprehension of the latest LLMs. We show that even the largest LLMs today perform poorly under the zero-shot setting. We then push their limits with advanced prompting techniques and external knowledge augmentation. Furthermore, we investigate whether their real-world comprehension primarily derives from contextual information or internal weights and analyse the impact of prompt formats and report bias of different objects. Our results show that real-world understanding that LLMs shaped from textual data can be vulnerable to deception and confusion by the surface form of prompts, which makes it less aligned with human behaviours.

Overview

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.2310.13394

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • In text-based physical commonsense reasoning, LLMs struggle with object attributes, spatial relationships, simple physical laws, and object affordances.

    “Failures of LLMs include lack of knowledge about object attributes (e.g., size, weight, softness) (Wang et al., 2023c; Liu et al., 2022b; Shu et al., 2023; Kondo et al., 2023), spatial relationships (e.g., above, inside, next to)”

    From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Shu 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.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Stephane Aroca-Ouellette, Cory Paik, Alessandro Ron- cone, and Katharina Kann. 2021. PROST: physical reasoning about objects through space and time. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 4597-4608. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Lawrence W Barsalou. 1999. Perceptual symbol sys- tems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4):577-660.
  3. Irving Biederman and Eric E Cooper. 1992. Size invari- ance in visual object priming. Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1):121.
  4. Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. 2022. Using cog- nitive psychology to understand GPT-3. CoRR, abs/2206.14576. · DOI
  5. Yonatan Bisk, Ari Holtzman, Jesse Thomason, Jacob Andreas, Yoshua Bengio, Joyce Chai, Mirella Lapata, Angeliki Lazaridou, Jonathan May, Aleksandr Nis- nevich, Nicolas Pinto, and Joseph P. Turian. 2020a. Experience grounds language. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, Novem- ber 16-20, 2020, pages 8718-8735. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  6. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. 2020b. PIQA: reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Ap- plications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7432- 7439. AAAI Press.
  7. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.
  8. Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4299-4307.
  9. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Web- son, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suz- gun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416. · DOI · Paper page
  10. NAC Cressie and HJ Whitford. 1986. How to use the two sample t-test. Biometrical Journal, 28(2):131- 148.
  11. Ishita Dasgupta, Christine Kaeser-Chen, Kenneth Marino, Arun Ahuja, Sheila Babayan, Felix Hill, and Rob Fergus. 2023. Collaborating with language mod- els for embodied reasoning. CoRR, abs/2302.00763. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Björn B de Koning, Stephanie I Wassenburg, Lisanne T Bos, and Menno Van der Schoot. 2017a. Size does matter: Implied object size is mentally simulated dur- ing language comprehension. Discourse processes, 54(7):493-503.
  13. Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, Wenlong Huang, Yevgen Chebotar, Pierre Ser- manet, Daniel Duckworth, Sergey Levine, Vincent Vanhoucke, Karol Hausman, Marc Toussaint, Klaus Greff, Andy Zeng, Igor Mordatch, and Pete Florence. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. CoRR, abs/2303.03378. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Martin H Fischer and Rolf A Zwaan. 2008. Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 61(6):825-850.
  15. Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela and Eduardo C. Garrido- Merchán. 2023. Chatgpt is not all you need. A state of the art review of large generative AI models. CoRR, abs/2301.04655. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. CoRR, abs/2301.07597. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Thilo Hagendorff, Sarah Fabi, and Michal Kosin- ski. 2022. Machine intuition: Uncovering human- like intuitive decision-making in GPT-3.5. CoRR, abs/2212.05206. · DOI
  18. Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. 2023. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. CoRR, abs/2305.14992. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Stein- hardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net.
  20. Oleksandr V Horchak, Jean-Christophe Giger, Maria Cabral, and Grzegorz Pochwatko. 2014. From demonstration to theory in embodied language com- prehension: a review. Cognitive Systems Research, 29:66-85.
  21. Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt A good translator? A preliminary study. CoRR, abs/2301.08745. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. CoRR, abs/2205.11916. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kay Lehnert. 2023. AI insights into theoretical physics and the swampland program: A journey through the cosmos with chatgpt. CoRR, abs/2301.08155. · DOI
  24. Yujian Li and Bi Liu. 2007. A normalized levenshtein distance metric. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 29(6):1091-1095. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Jiacheng Liu, Alisa Liu, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Pe- ter West, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022a. Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 3154- 3169. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  26. Ruibo Liu, Jason Wei, Shixiang Shane Gu, Te-Yen Wu, Soroush Vosoughi, Claire Cui, Denny Zhou, and An- drew M. Dai. 2022b. Mind's eye: Grounded lan- guage model reasoning through simulation. CoRR, abs/2210.05359. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Kyle Mahowald, Anna A. Ivanova, Idan Asher Blank, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2023. Dissociating language and thought in large language models: a cognitive perspective. CoRR, abs/2301.06627. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Oded Nov, Nina Singh, and Devin M. Mann. 2023. Putting chatgpt's medical advice to the (turing) test. CoRR, abs/2301.10035. · DOI
  29. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. CoRR, abs/2203.02155. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Ben Prystawski, Paul H. Thibodeau, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Psychologically-informed chain- of-thought prompts for metaphor understanding in large language models. CoRR, abs/2209.08141. · DOI
  31. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Tr- ishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, An- drea Santilli, Thibault Févry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multi- task prompted training enables zero-shot task gener- alization. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net.
  32. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. CoRR, abs/2302.00093. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Dominik Sobania, Martin Briesch, Carol Hanna, and Justyna Petke. 2023. An analysis of the auto- matic bug fixing performance of chatgpt. CoRR, abs/2301.08653. · DOI
  34. Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F. Christiano. 2020. Learn- ing to summarize from human feedback. CoRR, abs/2009.01325. · arXiv
  35. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, An- drew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net.
  36. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed H. Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2201.11903. · arXiv
  37. Jiannan Xiang, Tianhua Tao, Yi Gu, Tianmin Shu, Zirui Wang, Zichao Yang, and Zhiting Hu. 2023. Language models meet world models: Embodied experiences enhance language models. CoRR, abs/2305.10626. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shu, C., Han, J., Liu, F., Shareghi, E., & Collier, N.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
7518-7531
OpenAlex
W4389519908
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.32
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • UK Research and Innovation
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (2752931)
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
large language models, world models, zero-shot reasoning, prompt engineering

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