Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.01205 v1 pith:NYQJW7YE submitted 2025-06-01 cs.CL

Trick or Neat: Adversarial Ambiguity and Language Model Evaluation

classification cs.CL
keywords ambiguitylanguageadversarialmodelmodelspromptingaccuracyalong
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Detecting ambiguity is important for language understanding, including uncertainty estimation, humour detection, and processing garden path sentences. We assess language models' sensitivity to ambiguity by introducing an adversarial ambiguity dataset that includes syntactic, lexical, and phonological ambiguities along with adversarial variations (e.g., word-order changes, synonym replacements, and random-based alterations). Our findings show that direct prompting fails to robustly identify ambiguity, while linear probes trained on model representations can decode ambiguity with high accuracy, sometimes exceeding 90\%. Our results offer insights into the prompting paradigm and how language models encode ambiguity at different layers. We release both our code and data: https://github.com/coastalcph/lm_ambiguity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.