REVIEW 1 cited by
Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks
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
Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks
read the original abstract
Negation has been shown to be a major bottleneck for masked language models, such as BERT. However, whether this finding still holds for larger-sized auto-regressive language models (``LLMs'') has not been studied comprehensively. With the ever-increasing volume of research and applications of LLMs, we take a step back to evaluate the ability of current-generation LLMs to handle negation, a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that is central to language understanding. We evaluate different LLMs -- including the open-source GPT-neo, GPT-3, and InstructGPT -- against a wide range of negation benchmarks. Through systematic experimentation with varying model sizes and prompts, we show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas
Small open-weight LLMs endorse prohibited actions 24% of the time under affirmative framing but 77-100% under negated framings, a polarity swing that threatens high-stakes AI deployment.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.