Vittoria Dentella

Vittoria Dentella, Fritz Guenther, Elliot Murphy et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are recruited in applications that span from clinical assistance and legal support to question answering and education. Their success in specialized tasks has led to the claim that they possess human-like linguistic capabilities related to compositional understanding and reasoning. Yet, reverse-engineering is bound by Moravec's Paradox, according to which easy skills are hard. We systematically assess 7 state-of-the-art models on a novel benchmark. Models answered a series of comprehension questions, each prompted multiple times in two settings, permitting one-word or open-length replies. Each question targets a short text featuring high-frequency linguistic constructions. To establish a baseline for achieving human-like performance, we tested 400 humans on the same prompts. Based on a dataset of n=26,680 datapoints, we discovered that LLMs perform at chance accuracy and waver considerably in their answers. Quantitatively, the tested models are outperformed by humans, and qualitatively their answers showcase distinctly non-human errors in language understanding. We interpret this evidence as suggesting that, despite their usefulness in various tasks, current AI models fall short of understanding language in a way that matches humans, and we argue that this may be due to their lack of a compositional operator for regulating grammatical and semantic information.

Evelina Leivada, Vittoria Dentella, Elliot Murphy

In the field of Artificial (General) Intelligence (AI), the several recent advancements in Natural language processing (NLP) activities relying on Large Language Models (LLMs) have come to encourage the adoption of LLMs as scientific models of language. While the terminology employed for the characterization of LLMs favors their embracing as such, it is not clear that they are in a place to offer insights into the target system they seek to represent. After identifying the most important theoretical and empirical risks brought about by the adoption of scientific models that lack transparency, we discuss LLMs relating them to every scientific model's fundamental components: the object, the medium, the meaning and the user. We conclude that, at their current stage of development, LLMs hardly offer any explanations for language, and then we provide an outlook for more informative future research directions on this topic.

Marcel Binz, Elif Akata, Abdullah Almaatouq et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.

Vittoria Dentella, Fritz Guenther, Evelina Leivada

Understanding the limits of language is a prerequisite for Large Language Models (LLMs) to act as theories of natural language. LLM performance in some language tasks presents both quantitative and qualitative differences from that of humans, however it remains to be determined whether such differences are amenable to model size. This work investigates the critical role of model scaling, determining whether increases in size make up for such differences between humans and models. We test three LLMs from different families (Bard, 137 billion parameters; ChatGPT-3.5, 175 billion; ChatGPT-4, 1.5 trillion) on a grammaticality judgment task featuring anaphora, center embedding, comparatives, and negative polarity. N=1,200 judgments are collected and scored for accuracy, stability, and improvements in accuracy upon repeated presentation of a prompt. Results of the best performing LLM, ChatGPT-4, are compared to results of n=80 humans on the same stimuli. We find that humans are overall less accurate than ChatGPT-4 (76% vs. 80% accuracy, respectively), but that this is due to ChatGPT-4 outperforming humans only in one task condition, namely on grammatical sentences. Additionally, ChatGPT-4 wavers more than humans in its answers (12.5% vs. 9.6% likelihood of an oscillating answer, respectively). Thus, while increased model size may lead to better performance, LLMs are still not sensitive to (un)grammaticality the same way as humans are. It seems possible but unlikely that scaling alone can fix this issue. We interpret these results by comparing language learning in vivo and in silico, identifying three critical differences concerning (i) the type of evidence, (ii) the poverty of the stimulus, and (iii) the occurrence of semantic hallucinations due to impenetrable linguistic reference.

Elliot Murphy, Evelina Leivada, Vittoria Dentella et al.

A core component of a successful artificial general intelligence would be the rapid creation and manipulation of grounded compositional abstractions and the demonstration of expertise in the family of recursive hierarchical syntactic objects necessary for the creative use of human language. We evaluated the recently released o3 model (OpenAI; o3-mini-high) and discovered that while it succeeds on some basic linguistic tests relying on linear, surface statistics (e.g., the Strawberry Test), it fails to generalize basic phrase structure rules; it fails with comparative sentences involving semantically illegal cardinality comparisons ('Escher sentences'); its fails to correctly rate and explain acceptability dynamics; and it fails to distinguish between instructions to generate unacceptable semantic vs. unacceptable syntactic outputs. When tasked with generating simple violations of grammatical rules, it is seemingly incapable of representing multiple parses to evaluate against various possible semantic interpretations. In stark contrast to many recent claims that artificial language models are on the verge of replacing the field of linguistics, our results suggest not only that deep learning is hitting a wall with respect to compositionality (Marcus 2022), but that it is hitting [a [stubbornly [resilient wall]]] that cannot readily be surmounted to reach human-like compositional reasoning simply through more compute.

Vittoria Dentella, Weihang Huang, Silvia Angela Mansi et al.

Large Language Models can emulate different writing styles, ranging from composing poetry that appears indistinguishable from that of famous poets to using slang that can convince people that they are chatting with a human online. While differences in style may not always be visible to the untrained eye, we can generally distinguish the writing of different people, like a linguistic fingerprint. This work examines whether a language model can also be linked to a specific fingerprint. Through stylometric and multidimensional register analyses, we compare human-authored and model-authored texts from different registers. We find that the model can successfully adapt its style depending on whether it is prompted to produce a Wikipedia entry vs. a college essay, but not in a way that makes it indistinguishable from humans. Concretely, the model shows more limited variation when producing outputs in different registers. Our results suggest that the model prefers nouns to verbs, thus showing a distinct linguistic backbone from humans, who tend to anchor language in the highly grammaticalized dimensions of tense, aspect, and mood. It is possible that the more complex domains of grammar reflect a mode of thought unique to humans, thus acting as a litmus test for Artificial Intelligence.