Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks

Thinh Hung Truong, Timothy Baldwin, Karin Verspoor, Trevor Cohn
6/14/2023
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{truong2023language,
  title  = {Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks},
  author = {Thinh Hung Truong and Timothy Baldwin and Karin Verspoor and Trevor Cohn},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2306.08189},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.08189v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2306.08189.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2306.08189)

Discussion