Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Do language models learn typicality judgments from text?

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 2105.02987 v1 pith:A37PPIUY submitted 2021-05-06 cs.CL

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

Building on research arguing for the possibility of conceptual and categorical knowledge acquisition through statistics contained in language, we evaluate predictive language models (LMs) -- informed solely by textual input -- on a prevalent phenomenon in cognitive science: typicality. Inspired by experiments that involve language processing and show robust typicality effects in humans, we propose two tests for LMs. Our first test targets whether typicality modulates LM probabilities in assigning taxonomic category memberships to items. The second test investigates sensitivities to typicality in LMs' probabilities when extending new information about items to their categories. Both tests show modest -- but not completely absent -- correspondence between LMs and humans, suggesting that text-based exposure alone is insufficient to acquire typicality knowledge.

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. The potential -- and the pitfalls -- of using pre-trained language models as cognitive science theories

    cs.CL 2025-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    Pretrained language models can serve as credible cognitive science theories only if researchers validate linking hypotheses and avoid pitfalls of commission and omission.

Pith tools