Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Generics are puzzling. Can language models find the missing piece?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Generic sentences hide quantifier strength, and surprisal finds it

desk verdict A genuinely new corpus and a clever metric, but the headline numbers depend on a validation gap: p-acceptability is never checked against human quantifier judgments. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11318 v1 pith:W45P2JFW submitted 2024-12-15 cs.CL cs.AI

Gustavo Cilleruelo Calderón , Emily Allaway , Barry Haddow , Alexandra Birch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords genericsentencesimplicitquantificationsurprisalp-acceptabilityweakgenericscontext-sensitivitystereotypeslanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the implicit quantificational strength of generic sentences can be recovered from language model surprisal. It introduces CONGEN, a dataset of naturally occurring generic and quantified sentences with contexts, and p-acceptability, a metric that picks the explicit quantifier (all, most, some, or none) that makes the property tokens least surprising. Using this metric, it finds that generics respond to preceding context much more than explicit quantifiers do, and that roughly one in five naturally occurring generics express weak generalisations — properties true of only a minority of the kind. It also shows that negative stereotypes pattern as universal quantification, positive ones as most, and that a 'people who are' paraphrase shifts negative stereotypes toward some. If correct, these results give philosophers and linguists a corpus-scale way to test theories of generics against actual usage.

What carries the argument

The central object is p-acceptability, a metric defined on a sentence with a bare plural subject and a verb-plus-property predicate. For each candidate quantifier q in {all, most, some, none}, the metric prepends q to the sentence, computes the per-token surprisal of only the property tokens under a language model, and selects the q with the lowest surprisal. This turns implicit quantificational strength into a measurable, comparable quantity, and it is the device that generates all three main claims: the prevalence of weak generics, the context-sensitivity asymmetry, and the stereotype quantification profile. The metric is deliberately restricted to property tokens because whole-sentence surprisal is shown to be insensitive to quantifiers, replicating earlier failures.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to ask native speakers to choose among all, most, some, or no quantifier for a sample of CONGEN generics, with and without context, and measure agreement with p-acceptability; chance-level agreement would falsify the metric's semantic validity, and the context-sensitivity claim with it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the surprisal of property tokens (the words after the verb) in a language model is sensitive to explicit quantifiers, and that the quantifier which minimizes this surprisal tracks how speakers use generics. Validated against two datasets, this p-acceptability criterion recovers the expected ordering all/most stronger than some, reproduces known effects such as generic overgeneralisation, and assigns explicit quantifiers to generics in a way that matches semantic intuitions. Applied to naturally occurring generics, it estimates that roughly 18–23% of generic sentences are weak generics, and it shows that adding preceding context improves quantifier recovery for generics by about 20 percentage points within the first sentence, while explicit quantifiers gain little from context. The paper further claims that negative stereotypes are perceived as universals (all), positive ones as most, and that paraphrasing a stereotype as 'people who are X' shifts its implicit quantification toward some for real stereotypes, though the effect weakens for invented social kinds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantifier which makes a language model least surprised by the property words is the quantifier a speaker would judge as the best fit for that generic sentence, and this is tested only against the original labels of two datasets, not against fresh human judgments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The p-acceptability metric gives a continuous, corpus-scale measure of implicit quantificational strength, allowing theories of generics to be tested on naturally occurring language rather than only on synthetic examples.
  • If generics are indeed more context-sensitive than determiner quantifiers, contextualist accounts of generics gain empirical support, and models of generic semantics must incorporate preceding discourse as a variable.
  • A stable estimate of weak generics at roughly one in five provides a base rate for philosophical debates about striking generics, suggesting that non-striking minority generalisations are a common rather than exceptional phenomenon.
  • The stereotype results imply that language models encode the human bias of interpreting negative group statements as universal claims, and that surface paraphrases can measurably shift this perceived quantification, pointing to a concrete intervention target for bias mitigation.
  • Because the metric works without prompting or fine-tuning, it can be applied to any autoregressive language model, making quantification-sensitive analysis available for models that lack instruction tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the paper does not pursue: p-acceptability could track how the implicit quantification of a single generic shifts across a discourse, not just aggregate context windows; if the chosen quantifier changes with topic or preceding content, that would give contextualism a dynamic, per-occurrence test.
  • The 20% weak-generic figure suggests that philosophical theories calibrated on striking examples (dangerous predators, stereotyped groups) may underestimate the role of mundane, non-striking weak generics; revisiting those theories with this base rate in mind is a natural next step.
  • A testable cross-linguistic extension would adapt p-acceptability to languages without bare plurals, using definite plurals or singular generics; if the context-sensitivity asymmetry persists across such adaptations, it would indicate a general cognitive pattern rather than an artefact of English morphology.
  • The observed shift for 'people who are' paraphrases is compatible with the view that generics express primitive, kind-level generalisations: the paraphrase disrupts the kind-level reading, and the metric's sensitivity to that disruption is itself evidence that p-acceptability tracks the intended semantic distinction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CONGEN, a new dataset of 2,873 naturally occurring bare-plural generic and explicitly quantified sentences (all/most/some) with linguistic context, and proposes p-acceptability, a surprisal-based metric that selects the quantifier (including the null generic) that minimizes the surprisal of the property tokens after the verb. Using three Mistral models, the paper reports three main findings: (i) p-acceptability recovers intuitive quantifier patterns on CONGEN and GenericsKB-BP, (ii) generics are more context-sensitive than determiner quantifiers because increasing left context improves p-acceptability accuracy more for generic than for quantified sentences, and (iii) about 20% of naturally occurring generics are weak generalisations, operationally defined as those whose p-acceptable quantifier is 'some'. The paper also applies the metric to stereotype sentences, finding that negative stereotypes are predominantly quantified as 'all' and that the 'people who are' paraphrase reduces this tendency.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: existing generic datasets are synthetic or lack context, and the proposed CONGEN dataset is a potentially valuable resource for studying generics in naturalistic settings. The p-acceptability metric is clearly defined and the paper includes useful controls (whole-sequence versus property-token surprisal in Appendix C, random-context control in Appendix F). If the metric were shown to track human quantificational judgments, the reported findings on weak generics and context-sensitivity would be of substantial interest to both theoretical semantics and NLP. However, the current manuscript does not provide that validation, and the core claims therefore rest on an unverified assumption. The paper is honest about several limitations in Section 8, but it does not flag the absence of human calibration, which is the most load-bearing gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Definition 4.1; §5.1, Figure 1] The p-acceptability metric is never calibrated against human quantifier judgments, and the validation in §5.1 is vulnerable to a surface-form familiarity confound. For each sentence, the variation that reinserts the original quantifier (or preserves the generic's null quantifier) reproduces the original surface string, which is likely the most probable string in the model regardless of quantificational semantics. This is especially acute for generic sentences, where the 'original label' is the absence of a quantifier, i.e., the original surface form itself. Consequently, the fact that p-acceptability recovers original labels does not establish that lower property-token surprisal corresponds to the semantically most appropriate quantifier. A human judgment baseline (e.g., paraphrase acceptance or quantifier-strength ratings) on a sample of sentences is needed to support the metric's validity, and the downstream claims in §§5.2–5.4 currently stand or fall with this missing calibration.
  2. [§5.2, Figure 2, text after Eq. (1)] The operationalization of weak generics as 'generics whose p-acceptable quantifier is some' is an unvalidated axiom. The paper provides no independent evidence that the sentences so classified are actually perceived by speakers as expressing weak generalisations, nor that 'some' is the appropriate paraphrase rather than, say, 'many' or 'often'. Because 'some' is the semantically weakest candidate, it may also act as a default when the model has low confidence across all candidates, artificially inflating the weak-generic count. The abstract's claim that 'about 20% of naturally occurring generics ... express weak generalisations' therefore requires either a human annotation study on a subset of the classified sentences or a demonstration that the p-acceptability choice is not driven by uncertainty. Without such evidence, the 20% figure is a model-internal statistic rather than an empirical claim about language use.
  3. [§5.3, Figures 3 and 4] The context-sensitivity claim is measured as improvement in accuracy relative to original labels, not as a comparison with human context-sensitivity judgments. For generic sentences, the 'correct' answer is the original surface form, and adding more context may simply increase the model's probability for the exact original sentence, producing a spurious 'context effect' that reflects familiarity rather than semantic sensitivity. The random-context control in Appendix F rules out some generic benefits of context, but it does not remove the surface-form confound because the accuracy metric still uses the original label as ground truth. To support the conclusion that 'generics are more context-sensitive than determiner quantifiers', the paper needs either a human baseline for how context changes perceived quantificational strength, or a metric whose validity has been established independently of original-label recovery. In addition, the arbitrary choice of 4-token context chunks (Table I.6) is not motivated; a sensitivity analysis over chunk sizes would help establish robustness.
  4. [§5.4 (stereotypes) and §8 (Limitations)] The stereotype experiment interprets p-acceptability results as evidence about human bias in generic language (e.g., 'negative stereotypes are overwhelmingly implicitly quantified as universals'). This interpretation inherits the same calibration gap: without knowing whether p-acceptability tracks human quantificational strength, the model's 'all' preference for negative stereotypes could reflect corpus statistics or the metric's design rather than the psychological strikingness effect posited by Cimpian et al. (2010). Section 8 acknowledges classifier and annotator biases and the synthetic nature of the stereotype stimuli, but it does not acknowledge that the central metric has not been validated against human judgments. A focused validation study on stereotype sentences—e.g., collecting human ratings of how quantifier-like each stereotype generic feels—would substantially strengthen this section.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] The text contains a typo: 'indentifies' should be 'identifies' in the sentence defining the purpose of p-acceptability.
  2. [§5.3] The word 'p-acceptablility' appears instead of 'p-acceptability' in the experimental setup paragraph.
  3. [Table I.6 caption and §5.3] The example in Table I.6 is a sentence originally labeled 'All' ('All wolf spiders are sensitive to vibrations in the ground'), but the table caption labels it as a generic sample; please clarify the mapping between the example and the original-quantifier categories.
  4. [Appendix F] The appendix contains the typo 'p-aceptable' in the description of the random-context control.
  5. [Section 8, Limitations] The paper notes that the first author annotates most of the CONGEN data, but it does not report inter-annotator agreement or a second pass by other annotators; adding such information would improve the dataset's credibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Context-sensitivity finding is an in-sample artifact of metric selection: Hp was chosen because it responds to context on the same datasets, then §5.3 reports that response as a discovery.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C (Table C.2) and §5.3 (Figure 3)]
    "We observe that the surprisal over the whole sequence is not able to correctly predict generic sentences unless we provide big context windows. ... H needs a big context window to be sensitive to generics (MISTRAL-7B). ... In originally generic sentences, we have a 20% increase in accuracy across the first 20 tokens of context ... For explicitly quantified expressions, context does not improve the accuracy of p-acceptability as much as for generics."

    The p-acceptability metric was defined and empirically selected because property-token surprisal (Hp) is sensitive to generics and improves with context on the same datasets, whereas whole-sequence surprisal is not (Appendix C). The §5.3 experiment then reports exactly this sensitivity as evidence that generics are context-sensitive. The 'discovery' is thus the criterion used to choose the metric over its alternative, not an independent prediction. Because the metric is not calibrated against human quantifier judgments, the context-sensitivity asymmetry is an in-sample property of the chosen metric rather than a result forced by new data.

full rationale

The paper's formal derivation is not circular by equation: p-acceptability is an operational metric, and Definition 4.1 does not logically contain the downstream estimates. The main circularity is empirical-selection: Appendix C shows that Hp was chosen because whole-sequence surprisal failed and property-token surprisal succeeded on the same generic-recovery task and the same datasets; §5.3 then reports the context-sensitivity of Hp as a finding about generics. That is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, though it does not make the weak-generic or stereotype results strictly forced. The 20% weak-generic figure is an operational definition ('We take those generics with some as the p-acceptable quantifier to be weak generics'), so it is a validity/calibration gap rather than a mathematical circularity. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling citation was found; the random-context control and stereotype comparisons provide independent content. Score 5 reflects partial circularity in the central context-sensitivity claim while acknowledging the other contributions are not reduced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on the unvalidated mapping between LM surprisal and quantifier semantics, the choice of candidate quantifiers, and the operational definition of weak generics. These are assumptions the reader must accept to interpret the empirical findings.

free parameters (2)
  • Classifier score threshold = 0.7
    Hand-chosen threshold in Appendix B to select candidate sentences; affects which sentences enter CONGEN and therefore the empirical estimates.
  • Context chunk size = 4 tokens
    Section 5.3: context is increased in chunks of 4 tokens, which affects the measured accuracy profile of context-sensitivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Language model property-token surprisal tracks quantifier semantics.
    Definition 4.1; without this, p-acceptability is just a surface-form preference.
  • domain assumption The candidate quantifier set {all, most, some, generic} is sufficient to capture quantificational strength.
    Limitations note many/every/few are excluded; the 20% estimate is conditional on this set.
  • ad hoc to paper Weak generics correspond to generics whose p-acceptable quantifier is 'some'.
    Section 5.2; this operationalisation is not independently grounded in human data, though it aligns with Almotahari's weak generics.
  • domain assumption The RoBERTa classifier trained on synthetic KB data identifies generic and quantified sentences well enough.
    Appendix B; authors state the classifier's performance and biases are 'not well explored'.
  • domain assumption Left-context improvements reflect semantic context-sensitivity of generics, not topic or length confounds.
    Section 5.3; random-context control supports this but does not rule out all confounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generics are puzzling. Can language models find the missing piece?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W45P2JFW

@misc{pith2026241211318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generics are puzzling. Can language models find the missing piece?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W45P2JFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11318}
}
read the original abstract

Generic sentences express generalisations about the world without explicit quantification. Although generics are central to everyday communication, building a precise semantic framework has proven difficult, in part because speakers use generics to generalise properties with widely different statistical prevalence. In this work, we study the implicit quantification and context-sensitivity of generics by leveraging language models as models of language. We create ConGen, a dataset of 2873 naturally occurring generic and quantified sentences in context, and define p-acceptability, a metric based on surprisal that is sensitive to quantification. Our experiments show generics are more context-sensitive than determiner quantifiers and about 20% of naturally occurring generics we analyze express weak generalisations. We also explore how human biases in stereotypes can be observed in language models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. P-acceptable quantifiers on both datasets cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Implicit quantification in CONGEN generics across MISTRAL models. the multi-sentence contexts in CONGEN. Experimental setup. For each sentence in CON￾GEN, we compute the p-acceptable quantifier at increasing sizes of left-side context. We increase the context size in chunks of 4 tokens, irrespective of word or sentence boundaries (Table I.6). We measure the percentage of correct predic￾tions by p-acceptability as in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Percentage of correct p-acceptable quantifiers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Implicit quantification with different left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different p-acceptability rates for each paraphrase of stereotyping generic sentences for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Hwang, Kathleen McKeown, and Sarah-Jane Leslie

    Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jena D. Hwang, Kathleen McKeown, and Sarah-Jane Leslie. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00530 Exceptions, Instantiations, and Overgeneralization: Insights into How Language Models Process Generics . Computational Linguistics, pages 1--60

    work page doi:10.1162/coli_a_00530 2024

  4. [4]

    Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Kathleen McKeown, Doug Downey, and Yejin Choi

    Emily Allaway, Jena D. Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Kathleen McKeown, Doug Downey, and Yejin Choi. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.192 P enguins don ' t fly: Reasoning about generics through instantiations and exceptions . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pag...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.192 2023

  5. [5]

    Emily Allaway, Nina Taneja, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Maarten Sap. 2023 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16173 Towards countering essentialism through social bias reasoning . Preprint, arXiv:2303.16173

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Mahrad Almotahari. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anac005 Weak generics . Analysis, 82(3):405--409

    work page doi:10.1093/analys/anac005 2022

  7. [7]

    Mahrad Almotahari. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12491 Generic cognition: A neglected source of context sensitivity . Mind and Language

    work page doi:10.1111/mila.12491 2023

  8. [8]

    Sher Badshah and Hassan Sajjad. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03146 Quantifying the capabilities of llms across scale and precision . Preprint, arXiv:2405.03146

    arXiv 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Jason Baumgartner, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08435 The pushshift reddit dataset . Preprint, arXiv:2001.08435

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hwang, Doug Downey, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Lianhui Qin, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Peter West, and Yejin Choi

    Chandra Bhagavatula, Jena D. Hwang, Doug Downey, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Lianhui Qin, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Peter West, and Yejin Choi. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09246 I2d2: Inductive knowledge distillation with neurologic and self-imitation . Preprin...

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sumithra Bhakthavatsalam, Chloe Anastasiades, and Peter Clark. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00660 Genericskb: A knowledge base of generic statements . CoRR, abs/2005.00660

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Anne Bosse. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03426-8 Generics: Some (non) specifics . Synthese, (5-6):14383--14401

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Anne Bosse. 2022. Stereotyping and generics. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, pages 1--17

    2022

  6. [14]

    Mark Bowker. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12616 A problem for generic generalisations in scientific communication . Journal of Applied Philosophy, 39(5):1002--1017

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Robert Brandom. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass

    1994

  8. [16]

    Carlson, editor

    Greg N. Carlson, editor. 1977b. Reference to Kinds in English

  9. [17]

    Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, editors

    Greg N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, editors. 1995. The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press

    1995

  10. [18]

    Andrea Carnaghi, Anne Maass, Stefania Gresta, Mauro Bianchi, Mara Cadinu, and Luciano Arcuri. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.839 Nomina sunt omina: On the inductive potential of nouns and adjectives in person perception . Journal of Personality and Social Psychol...

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04132 Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human pr...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Andrei Cimpian, Amanda C Brandone, and Susan A Gelman. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.x Generic statements require little evidence for acceptance but have powerful implications . Cognitive Science, 34(8):1452--1482

    2010

  13. [21]

    Ariel Cohen. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005497727784 Generics, frequency adverbs, and probability . Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(3):221--253

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    Claudia Collacciani, Giulia Rambelli, and Marianna Bolognesi. 2024. Quantifying generalizations: Exploring the divide between human and llms’ sensitivity to quantification. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Lo...

    2024

  15. [23]

    DeJesus, Maureen A

    Jasmine M. DeJesus, Maureen A. Callanan, Graciela Solis, and Susan A. Gelman. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817706116 Generic language in scientific communication . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(37):18370--18377. Contributed by Susan A. Gelman, Jul...

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    John D. Garrett. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4106649 garrettj403/SciencePlots

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Gelman and Geoffrey D

    Susan A. Gelman and Geoffrey D. Heyman. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00194 Carrot-eaters and creature-believers: The effects of lexicalization on children's inferences about social categories . Psychological Science, 10(6):489--493

    1999

  18. [26]

    Akshat Gupta. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.blackboxnlp-1.4 Probing quantifier comprehension in large language models: Another example of inverse scaling . In Proceedings of the 6th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 56--64...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Matti Gustafsson. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04213-3 Taking truth seriously: The case of generics . Synthese, 202(3)

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Martin Heidegger. 1927. Being & Time. Max Niemeyer

    1927

  21. [29]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300 Measuring massive multitask language understanding . CoRR, abs/2009.03300

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sangeet Khemlani, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Sam Glucksberg. 2009. Generics, prevalence, and default inferences

    2009

  24. [32]

    James Ravi Kirkpatrick. 2023. https://academic.oup.com/jos/article-pdf/40/4/523/58199991/ffad015.pdf The dynamics of generics . Journal of Semantics, 40(4):523--548

    2023

  25. [33]

    James Ravi Kirkpatrick. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04653-5 Are generics quantificational? Synthese, 204(17)

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Tom Kocmi, Eleftherios Avramidis, Rachel Bawden, Ond r ej Bojar, Anton Dvorkovich, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Markus Freitag, Thamme Gowda, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Marzena Karpinska, Philipp Koehn, Benjamin Marie, Christof Monz, Kenton Murray, Masaaki Nagata, ...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Linnaea Stockall, and Napoleon Katsos. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1285993 A new look at the ‘generic overgeneralisation’ effect . Inquiry, 66(9):1655--1681

    2017

  28. [36]

    Sarah-Jane Leslie. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-023 Generics: Cognition and acquisition . Philosophical Review, 117(1)

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    Sarah-Jane Leslie. 2017. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2017114828 The original sin of cognition: Fear prejudice, and generalization . Journal of Philosophy, 114(8):393--421

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Sarah-Jane Leslie, Sangeet Khemlani, and Sam Glucksberg. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.005 Do all ducks lay eggs? the generic overgeneralization effect . Journal of Memory and Language, 65(1):15--31

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Sarah‐Jane Leslie. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2007.00138.x Generics and the structure of the mind . Philosophical Perspectives, 21:375 -- 403

    2007

  32. [40]

    David Lewis. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. pages 5--20

    1975

  33. [41]

    David Liebesman. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00774.x Simple generics . No\^ u s , 45(3):409--442

    2011

  34. [42]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach . Preprint, arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Jimin Mun, Emily Allaway, Akhila Yerukola, Laura Vianna, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Maarten Sap. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.653 Beyond denouncing hate: Strategies for countering implied biases and stereotypes in language . In Findings of the Association ...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    forthcoming

    Eleonore Neufeld, Annie Bosse, Guillermo Del Pinal, and Rachel Sterken. forthcoming. Giving generic language another thought. WIREs Cognitive Science

  37. [45]

    Anthony Nguyen. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01254-8 The radical account of bare plural generics . Philosophical Studies, 177(5):1303--1331

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Bernhard Nickel. 2016. Between Logic and the World: An Integrated Theory of Generics. Oxford University Press UK, Oxford, GB

    2016

  39. [47]

    Gustavo Novoa, Margaret Echelbarger, Andrew Gelman, and Susan A. Gelman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2309361120 Generically partisan: Polarization in political communication . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(47):e2309361120. Contributed by Susan A. ...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Uwe Peters, Henrik Sherling, and Benjamin Chin-Yee. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306749 Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review . PLOS ONE, 19

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Peng Qi, Yuhao Zhang, Yuhui Zhang, Jason Bolton, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07082 Stanza: A python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages . CoRR, abs/2003.07082

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sello Ralethe and Jan Buys. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.282 Generic overgeneralization in pre-trained language models . In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3187--3196, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Internation...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Marjorie Rhodes, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Christina M. Tworek. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208951109 Cultural transmission of social essentialism . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(34):13526--13531. Edited by Douglas L. Medin, Northwestern University,...

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Abel Salinas and Fred Morstatter. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03729 The butterfly effect of altering prompts: How small changes and jailbreaks affect large language model performance . Preprint, arXiv:2401.03729

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Smith, and Yejin Choi

    Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486 Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Associati...

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Markowitz

    Amir Sepehri, Mitra Sadat Mirshafiee, and David M. Markowitz. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1377 Passivepy: A tool to automatically identify passive voice in big text data . Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(4):714--727

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Peters, Abhilasha Ravichander, Kyle Richardson, Zejiang Shen, Emma Strubell, Nishant Subramani, Oyvind Tafjord, Pete Walsh, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A

    Luca Soldaini, Rodney Kinney, Akshita Bhagia, Dustin Schwenk, David Atkinson, Russell Authur, Ben Bogin, Khyathi Chandu, Jennifer Dumas, Yanai Elazar, Valentin Hofmann, Ananya Harsh Jha, Sachin Kumar, Li Lucy, Xinxi Lyu, Nathan Lambert, Ian Magnusson, Jacob Morrison, Niklas Mu...

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Rachel Sterken. 2015 a . Generics in context. Philosophers’ Imprint, 15:1--30

    2015

  49. [57]

    Rachel Katharine Sterken. 2015 b . https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12056 Generics, content and cognitive bias . Analytic Philosophy, 56(1):75--93

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    Preston Stovall. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2019.1580839 Characterizing generics are material inference tickets: A proof-theoretic analysis . Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, (5):668--704

    2019

  51. [59]

    Michael Henry Tessler and Noah D. Goodman. 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02926 The language of generalization . CoRR, abs/1608.02926

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    2020-2022

    Maxim Tkachenko, Mikhail Malyuk, Andrey Holmanyuk, and Nikolai Liubimov. 2020-2022. https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio Label Studio : Data labeling software . Open source software available from https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio

    2020

  53. [61]

    Ludwig Wittgenstein. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell, Oxford

    1953

  54. [62]

    Shengyu Zhang, Linfeng Dong, Xiaoya Li, Sen Zhang, Xiaofei Sun, Shuhe Wang, Jiwei Li, Runyi Hu, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, and Guoyin Wang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10792 Instruction tuning for large language models: A survey . Preprint, arXiv:2308.10792

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.