PUB: A Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark for Assessing LLMs' Pragmatics Capabilities
read the original abstract
LLMs have demonstrated remarkable capability for understanding semantics, but they often struggle with understanding pragmatics. To demonstrate this fact, we release a Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark (PUB) dataset consisting of fourteen tasks in four pragmatics phenomena, namely, Implicature, Presupposition, Reference, and Deixis. We curated high-quality test sets for each task, consisting of Multiple Choice Question Answers (MCQA). PUB includes a total of 28k data points, 6.1k of which have been created by us, and the rest are adapted from existing datasets. We evaluated nine models varying in the number of parameters and type of training. Our study indicates that fine-tuning for instruction-following and chat significantly enhances the pragmatics capabilities of smaller language models. However, for larger models, the base versions perform comparably with their chat-adapted counterparts. Additionally, there is a noticeable performance gap between human capabilities and model capabilities. Furthermore, unlike the consistent performance of humans across various tasks, the models demonstrate variability in their proficiency, with performance levels fluctuating due to different hints and the complexities of tasks within the same dataset. Overall, the benchmark aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of LLM's ability to handle real-world language tasks that require pragmatic reasoning.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Can Large Language Models Handle Discourse Particles? A Case Study of Colloquial Malay
Introduces MalayPrag benchmark and five pragmatic attributes, showing LLMs struggle to link discourse particles to functions in Malay but improve with attribute scaffolding.
-
Implicature in Interaction: Understanding Implicature Improves Alignment in Human-LLM Interaction
Using prompts that incorporate implicature leads to responses that humans prefer 67.6% of the time over literal prompts, with larger models better at inferring intent.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.