Jennifer J. Hu

Jennifer Hu, Sammy Floyd, Olessia Jouravlev et al.

Pragmatics and non-literal language understanding are essential to human communication, and present a long-standing challenge for artificial language models. We perform a fine-grained comparison of language models and humans on seven pragmatic phenomena, using zero-shot prompting on an expert-curated set of English materials. We ask whether models (1) select pragmatic interpretations of speaker utterances, (2) make similar error patterns as humans, and (3) use similar linguistic cues as humans to solve the tasks. We find that the largest models achieve high accuracy and match human error patterns: within incorrect responses, models favor literal interpretations over heuristic-based distractors. We also find preliminary evidence that models and humans are sensitive to similar linguistic cues. Our results suggest that pragmatic behaviors can emerge in models without explicitly constructed representations of mental states. However, models tend to struggle with phenomena relying on social expectation violations.

Pei Zhou, Andrew Zhu, Jennifer Hu et al.

We propose a novel task, G4C, to study teacher-student natural language interactions in a goal-driven and grounded environment. Dungeons and Dragons (D&D), a role-playing game, provides an ideal setting to investigate such interactions. Here, the Dungeon Master (DM), i.e., the teacher, guides the actions of several players -- students, each with their own personas and abilities -- to achieve shared goals grounded in a fantasy world. Our approach is to decompose and model these interactions into (1) the DM's intent to guide players toward a given goal; (2) the DM's guidance utterance to the players expressing this intent; and (3) a theory-of-mind (ToM) model that anticipates the players' reaction to the guidance one turn into the future. We develop a novel reinforcement learning (RL) method for training a DM that generates guidance for players by rewarding utterances where the intent matches the ToM-anticipated player actions. Human and automated evaluations show that a DM trained to explicitly model intents and incorporate ToM of the players using RL generates better-quality guidance that is 3x more likely to fulfill the DM's intent than a vanilla natural language generation (NLG) approach.

Jennifer Hu, Roger Levy, Judith Degen et al.

Scalar inferences (SI) are a signature example of how humans interpret language based on unspoken alternatives. While empirical studies have demonstrated that human SI rates are highly variable -- both within instances of a single scale, and across different scales -- there have been few proposals that quantitatively explain both cross- and within-scale variation. Furthermore, while it is generally assumed that SIs arise through reasoning about unspoken alternatives, it remains debated whether humans reason about alternatives as linguistic forms, or at the level of concepts. Here, we test a shared mechanism explaining SI rates within and across scales: context-driven expectations about the unspoken alternatives. Using neural language models to approximate human predictive distributions, we find that SI rates are captured by the expectedness of the strong scalemate as an alternative. Crucially, however, expectedness robustly predicts cross-scale variation only under a meaning-based view of alternatives. Our results suggest that pragmatic inferences arise from context-driven expectations over alternatives, and these expectations operate at the level of concepts.

Sonia K. Murthy, Rosie Zhao, Jennifer Hu et al. · deepmind

Value trade-offs are an integral part of human decision-making and language use, however, current tools for interpreting such dynamic and multi-faceted notions of values in LLMs are limited. In cognitive science, so-called "cognitive models" provide formal accounts of such trade-offs in humans, by modeling the weighting of a speaker's competing utility functions in choosing an action or utterance. Here we use a leading cognitive model of polite speech to systematically evaluate value trade-offs in two encompassing model settings: degrees of reasoning "effort" in frontier black-box models, and RL post-training dynamics of open-source models. Our results highlight patterns of higher informational utility than social utility in reasoning models' default behavior, and demonstrate that these patterns shift in predictable ways when models are prompted to prioritize certain goals over others. Our findings from LLMs' training dynamics suggest large shifts in utility values early on in training with persistent effects of the choice of base model and pretraining data, compared to feedback dataset or alignment method. Our framework offers a flexible tool for probing value trade-offs across diverse model types, providing insights for generating hypotheses about other social behaviors such as sycophancy and for shaping training regimes that better control trade-offs between values during model development.

Jennifer Hu, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Siyuan Song et al.

What have language models (LMs) learned about grammar? This question remains hotly debated, with major ramifications for linguistic theory. However, since probability and grammaticality are distinct notions in linguistics, it is not obvious what string probabilities can reveal about an LM's underlying grammatical knowledge. We present a theoretical analysis of the relationship between grammar, meaning, and string probability, based on simple assumptions about the generative process of corpus data. Our framework makes three predictions, which we validate empirically using 280K sentence pairs in English and Chinese: (1) correlation between the probability of strings within minimal pairs, i.e., string pairs with minimal semantic differences; (2) correlation between models' and humans' deltas within minimal pairs; and (3) poor separation in probability space between unpaired grammatical and ungrammatical strings. Our analyses give theoretical grounding for using probability to learn about LMs' structural knowledge, and suggest directions for future work in LM grammatical evaluation.

Jennifer Hu, Roger Levy

Prompting is now a dominant method for evaluating the linguistic knowledge of large language models (LLMs). While other methods directly read out models' probability distributions over strings, prompting requires models to access this internal information by processing linguistic input, thereby implicitly testing a new type of emergent ability: metalinguistic judgment. In this study, we compare metalinguistic prompting and direct probability measurements as ways of measuring models' linguistic knowledge. Broadly, we find that LLMs' metalinguistic judgments are inferior to quantities directly derived from representations. Furthermore, consistency gets worse as the prompt query diverges from direct measurements of next-word probabilities. Our findings suggest that negative results relying on metalinguistic prompts cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that an LLM lacks a particular linguistic generalization. Our results also highlight the value that is lost with the move to closed APIs where access to probability distributions is limited.