Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Language Models Be Specific? How?

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 2210.05159 v2 pith:LBGKPL63 submitted 2022-10-11 cs.CL cs.AI

Can Language Models Be Specific? How?

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords specificitylanguagemodelsspecificplmslocatedmethodsachieve
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

"He is a person", "Paris is located on the earth". Both statements are correct but meaningless - due to lack of specificity. In this paper, we propose to measure how specific the language of pre-trained language models (PLMs) is. To achieve this, we introduce a novel approach to build a benchmark for specificity testing by forming masked token prediction tasks with prompts. For instance, given "Toronto is located in [MASK].", we want to test whether a more specific answer will be better filled in by PLMs, e.g., Ontario instead of Canada. From our evaluations, we show that existing PLMs have only a slight preference for more specific answers. We identify underlying factors affecting the specificity and design two prompt-based methods to improve the specificity. Results show that the specificity of the models can be improved by the proposed methods without additional training. We hope this work can bring to awareness the notion of specificity of language models and encourage the research community to further explore this important but understudied problem.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. When Should LLMs Be Less Specific? Selective Abstraction for Reliable Long-Form Text Generation

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Atom-wise selective abstraction—replacing low-confidence factual claims with higher-confidence, less specific versions—improves the risk-coverage trade-off in long-form generation by up to 27.73% AURC over claim removal.