Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Experimental Pragmatics with Machines: Testing LLM Predictions for the Inferences of Plain and Embedded Disjunctions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.05776 v1 pith:5XMJXKEI submitted 2024-05-09 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords inferencesthosedisjunctionsembeddedexperimentalhumansimplicatureslarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Human communication is based on a variety of inferences that we draw from sentences, often going beyond what is literally said. While there is wide agreement on the basic distinction between entailment, implicature, and presupposition, the status of many inferences remains controversial. In this paper, we focus on three inferences of plain and embedded disjunctions, and compare them with regular scalar implicatures. We investigate this comparison from the novel perspective of the predictions of state-of-the-art large language models, using the same experimental paradigms as recent studies investigating the same inferences with humans. The results of our best performing models mostly align with those of humans, both in the large differences we find between those inferences and implicatures, as well as in fine-grained distinctions among different aspects of those inferences.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can Vision-Language Models Infer Speaker's Ignorance? The Role of Visual and Linguistic Cues

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a controlled image-text task, Claude 3.5 integrated visual and question cues to make pragmatic speaker-ignorance inferences, while GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro relied more on literal meanings.

Pith tools