Log Probabilities Are a Reliable Estimate of Semantic Plausibility in Base and Instruction-Tuned Language Models
This work addresses the need for reliable evaluation metrics in natural language processing, particularly for assessing world knowledge in language models, though it is incremental in refining existing methods.
The study tackled the problem of measuring semantic plausibility in language models by comparing log probabilities (LogProbs) and prompting methods, finding that LogProbs are more reliable and consistent across base and instruction-tuned models, with context modulating them as expected based on human judgments.
Semantic plausibility (e.g. knowing that "the actor won the award" is more likely than "the actor won the battle") serves as an effective proxy for general world knowledge. Language models (LMs) capture vast amounts of world knowledge by learning distributional patterns in text, accessible via log probabilities (LogProbs) they assign to plausible vs. implausible outputs. The new generation of instruction-tuned LMs can now also provide explicit estimates of plausibility via prompting. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of LogProbs and basic prompting to measure semantic plausibility, both in single-sentence minimal pairs (Experiment 1) and short context-dependent scenarios (Experiment 2). We find that (i) in both base and instruction-tuned LMs, LogProbs offers a more reliable measure of semantic plausibility than direct zero-shot prompting, which yields inconsistent and often poor results; (ii) instruction-tuning generally does not alter the sensitivity of LogProbs to semantic plausibility (although sometimes decreases it); (iii) across models, context mostly modulates LogProbs in expected ways, as measured by three novel metrics of context-sensitive plausibility and their match to explicit human plausibility judgments. We conclude that, even in the era of prompt-based evaluations, LogProbs constitute a useful metric of semantic plausibility, both in base and instruction-tuned LMs.