REVIEW 2 cited by
Large-scale cloze evaluation reveals that token prediction tasks are neither lexically nor semantically aligned
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
read the original abstract
In this work we compare the generative behavior at the next token prediction level in several language models by comparing them to human productions in the cloze task. We find that while large models trained for longer are typically better estimators of human productions, but they reliably under-estimate the probabilities of human responses, over-rank rare responses, under-rank top responses, and produce highly distinct semantic spaces. Altogether, this work demonstrates in a tractable, interpretable domain that LM generations can not be used as replacements of or models of the cloze task.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Clozing the Gap: Exploring Why Language Model Surprisal Outperforms Cloze Surprisal
Language-model surprisal predicts reading times better than cloze surprisal because it is higher-resolution, semantically discriminating, and frequency-sensitive.
-
Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets
LLMs under one-shot greedy decoding enumerate or materialize acceptable sets much worse than they judge membership, a gap that persists across scale, family, and generation and is dominated by omissions.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.