Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

What Really is Commonsense Knowledge?

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 2411.03964 v1 pith:LOHESDZO submitted 2024-11-06 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords commonsenseknowledgedatasetsdefinitioninstanceslargeabovebenchmarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Commonsense datasets have been well developed in Natural Language Processing, mainly through crowdsource human annotation. However, there are debates on the genuineness of commonsense reasoning benchmarks. In specific, a significant portion of instances in some commonsense benchmarks do not concern commonsense knowledge. That problem would undermine the measurement of the true commonsense reasoning ability of evaluated models. It is also suggested that the problem originated from a blurry concept of commonsense knowledge, as distinguished from other types of knowledge. To demystify all of the above claims, in this study, we survey existing definitions of commonsense knowledge, ground into the three frameworks for defining concepts, and consolidate them into a multi-framework unified definition of commonsense knowledge (so-called consolidated definition). We then use the consolidated definition for annotations and experiments on the CommonsenseQA and CommonsenseQA 2.0 datasets to examine the above claims. Our study shows that there exists a large portion of non-commonsense-knowledge instances in the two datasets, and a large performance gap on these two subsets where Large Language Models (LLMs) perform worse on commonsense-knowledge instances.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Do LLMs exhibit the same commonsense capabilities across languages?

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs produce more commonsensical sentences in English than in Spanish, Dutch, or Valencian, across automatic, LLM-judge, and human evaluations on the new MULTICOM benchmark.

Pith tools