洞察 - Computational Linguistics - # Humanlikeness of Large Language Models in Language Use

Benchmarking Large Language Models' Alignment with Human Language Use Patterns

Q: How can the insights from this psycholinguistic benchmark be used to improve the design and training of large language models to better capture the nuances of human language use?

The insights gained from the psycholinguistic benchmark (HLB) can significantly inform the design and training of large language models (LLMs) by highlighting specific areas where these models diverge from human language patterns. By systematically evaluating LLMs across various linguistic levels—such as sound, word, syntax, semantics, and discourse—the benchmark identifies strengths and weaknesses in model performance. Targeted Training Data: The findings can guide the selection and curation of training data that better reflects the complexities of human language. For instance, if LLMs struggle with semantic priming, as indicated in the benchmark, training data can be enriched with examples that emphasize context-dependent meanings and ambiguous language. Model Architecture Adjustments: Insights into how LLMs perform on specific tasks can lead to architectural modifications. For example, if certain models exhibit over-priming effects, adjustments in the attention mechanisms or the incorporation of memory components could help models better mimic human-like flexibility in language processing. Incorporation of Psycholinguistic Principles: The benchmark underscores the importance of integrating psycholinguistic principles into model training. By simulating cognitive processes that humans use in language comprehension and production, such as structural priming and ambiguity resolution, LLMs can be trained to replicate these nuanced behaviors more effectively. Evaluation Metrics: The introduction of humanlikeness scores as a metric for model evaluation can shift the focus from traditional task-based accuracy to a more holistic understanding of language use. This can encourage developers to prioritize human-like qualities in future iterations of LLMs, fostering models that are not only accurate but also contextually aware and nuanced in their language generation.

Q: What are the potential limitations of using only native English speakers from the UK and US as the human participant pool, and how might this affect the generalizability of the findings?

Using a participant pool limited to native English speakers from the UK and US presents several limitations that could affect the generalizability of the findings: Cultural Bias: Language use is deeply influenced by cultural context. By focusing solely on participants from the UK and US, the study may overlook linguistic variations and nuances present in other English-speaking regions, such as Australia, Canada, or South Africa. This cultural bias can lead to findings that do not accurately reflect global English language use. Linguistic Diversity: English is a global language with numerous dialects and variations. The responses from participants in the UK and US may not capture the full spectrum of English language use, including idiomatic expressions, slang, and regional dialects. This limitation could skew the benchmark results, making them less applicable to LLMs intended for a broader audience. Cognitive Differences: Language processing can vary significantly across different populations due to cognitive and educational factors. By excluding non-native speakers and individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds, the study may miss important insights into how different groups process language, which could inform the development of more inclusive LLMs. Implications for Model Training: The findings derived from a homogenous participant pool may lead to the development of LLMs that are optimized for a specific subset of English speakers, potentially alienating users from other backgrounds. This could limit the effectiveness of LLMs in real-world applications where diverse language use is prevalent.

核心概念

Large language models (LLMs) can generate human-like text, but the extent to which they truly replicate human language use patterns remains unclear. This study introduces a comprehensive psycholinguistic benchmark to systematically evaluate the humanlikeness of 20 prominent LLMs across various linguistic levels.

摘要

This study presents a novel benchmark for evaluating the humanlikeness of large language models (LLMs) in language use. The benchmark consists of 10 psycholinguistic experiments covering key linguistic aspects such as sound, word, syntax, semantics, and discourse.

The researchers collected responses from over 2,000 human participants and compared them to outputs from 20 LLMs, including models from the OpenAI, Meta, and Mistral families. They developed an auto-coding algorithm to reliably extract language use patterns from the responses and quantified humanlikeness based on the similarity between human and LLM response distributions.

The results reveal significant differences in how well LLMs approximate human language use across various linguistic levels. The Llama family of models, particularly Meta-Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct, consistently outperformed the OpenAI and Mistral models in terms of humanlikeness. In contrast, the Mistral models showed a decrease in humanlikeness over time.

The study also highlights specific areas where LLMs diverge from human language patterns, such as in semantic priming and ambiguity resolution tasks. These findings underscore the importance of using psycholinguistic methods to evaluate LLMs, as traditional NLP benchmarks often fail to capture the nuances of human language use.

By introducing a comprehensive psycholinguistic benchmark, this study provides a new framework for assessing the humanlikeness of LLMs and offers critical insights for the continued development of language models that more closely mirror the richness and diversity of human communication.

自定义摘要

使用 AI 改写

生成参考文献

翻译原文

翻译成其他语言

生成思维导图

从原文生成

访问来源

arxiv.org

统计

The racing driver gave helpful mechanic wrench.
The racing driver gave torn overall his mechanic.
Susan was very bad at algebra, so she hated math.
Susan introduced herself to me as someone who loved mathematics.
The man accepted the post in the accountancy firm.
The man accepted the job in the accountancy firm.

引用

"Although Pelcrad was sick..."
"Although Pelcra was sick..."

从中提取的关键见解

HLB: Benchmarking LLMs' Humanlikeness in Language Use

by Xufeng Duan,... 在 arxiv.org 09-25-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.15890.pdf

HLB: Benchmarking LLMs' Humanlikeness in Language Use

更深入的查询

How can the insights from this psycholinguistic benchmark be used to improve the design and training of large language models to better capture the nuances of human language use?

The insights gained from the psycholinguistic benchmark (HLB) can significantly inform the design and training of large language models (LLMs) by highlighting specific areas where these models diverge from human language patterns. By systematically evaluating LLMs across various linguistic levels—such as sound, word, syntax, semantics, and discourse—the benchmark identifies strengths and weaknesses in model performance.

Targeted Training Data: The findings can guide the selection and curation of training data that better reflects the complexities of human language. For instance, if LLMs struggle with semantic priming, as indicated in the benchmark, training data can be enriched with examples that emphasize context-dependent meanings and ambiguous language.

Model Architecture Adjustments: Insights into how LLMs perform on specific tasks can lead to architectural modifications. For example, if certain models exhibit over-priming effects, adjustments in the attention mechanisms or the incorporation of memory components could help models better mimic human-like flexibility in language processing.

Incorporation of Psycholinguistic Principles: The benchmark underscores the importance of integrating psycholinguistic principles into model training. By simulating cognitive processes that humans use in language comprehension and production, such as structural priming and ambiguity resolution, LLMs can be trained to replicate these nuanced behaviors more effectively.

Evaluation Metrics: The introduction of humanlikeness scores as a metric for model evaluation can shift the focus from traditional task-based accuracy to a more holistic understanding of language use. This can encourage developers to prioritize human-like qualities in future iterations of LLMs, fostering models that are not only accurate but also contextually aware and nuanced in their language generation.

What are the potential limitations of using only native English speakers from the UK and US as the human participant pool, and how might this affect the generalizability of the findings?

Using a participant pool limited to native English speakers from the UK and US presents several limitations that could affect the generalizability of the findings:

Cultural Bias: Language use is deeply influenced by cultural context. By focusing solely on participants from the UK and US, the study may overlook linguistic variations and nuances present in other English-speaking regions, such as Australia, Canada, or South Africa. This cultural bias can lead to findings that do not accurately reflect global English language use.

Linguistic Diversity: English is a global language with numerous dialects and variations. The responses from participants in the UK and US may not capture the full spectrum of English language use, including idiomatic expressions, slang, and regional dialects. This limitation could skew the benchmark results, making them less applicable to LLMs intended for a broader audience.

Cognitive Differences: Language processing can vary significantly across different populations due to cognitive and educational factors. By excluding non-native speakers and individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds, the study may miss important insights into how different groups process language, which could inform the development of more inclusive LLMs.

Implications for Model Training: The findings derived from a homogenous participant pool may lead to the development of LLMs that are optimized for a specific subset of English speakers, potentially alienating users from other backgrounds. This could limit the effectiveness of LLMs in real-world applications where diverse language use is prevalent.

Given the observed differences in humanlikeness across linguistic levels, what specific cognitive and computational mechanisms might underlie the strengths and weaknesses of large language models in replicating human language patterns?

The observed differences in humanlikeness across linguistic levels suggest several cognitive and computational mechanisms that may underlie the strengths and weaknesses of large language models (LLMs):

Statistical Learning vs. Cognitive Flexibility: LLMs primarily rely on statistical learning, identifying patterns in vast datasets. While this allows them to generate coherent text, it may limit their ability to exhibit the cognitive flexibility that humans demonstrate when processing language. For instance, humans can easily navigate ambiguous contexts and adjust their interpretations based on prior knowledge, whereas LLMs may struggle with such nuances, leading to over-priming or rigid responses.

Memory and Contextual Awareness: Human language processing is heavily influenced by working memory and contextual awareness. Humans can retain and utilize contextual information to inform their understanding of language, which is crucial for tasks like ambiguity resolution. LLMs, however, often lack a robust mechanism for maintaining context over longer interactions, which can hinder their performance in tasks requiring deep contextual understanding.

Semantic Networks and Associations: Humans possess intricate semantic networks that allow for nuanced associations between words and meanings. This cognitive structure enables humans to access relevant meanings based on context. LLMs, while capable of generating text based on learned associations, may not replicate the depth of these semantic networks, leading to discrepancies in tasks like word meaning priming.

Syntactic and Discourse Processing: The ability to process syntax and discourse is another area where LLMs may fall short. Humans utilize a combination of syntactic rules and discourse-level understanding to construct meaning. LLMs, on the other hand, may excel in syntactic generation but struggle with discourse coherence, particularly in maintaining thematic continuity across longer texts.

Training Paradigms: The training paradigms used for LLMs can also influence their performance. Models trained on diverse, high-quality datasets that include varied linguistic phenomena are likely to perform better in replicating human language patterns. Conversely, models trained on less diverse data may exhibit weaknesses in specific linguistic areas, as highlighted by the benchmark results.

By understanding these cognitive and computational mechanisms, researchers and developers can better address the limitations of LLMs, leading to more sophisticated models that closely align with human language use.