Predict the Next Word: Humans exhibit uncertainty in this task and language models _____
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866909138917785600 |
|---|---|
| author | Ilia, Evgenia Aziz, Wilker |
| author_facet | Ilia, Evgenia Aziz, Wilker |
| contents | Language models (LMs) are statistical models trained to assign probability to human-generated text. As such, it is reasonable to question whether they approximate linguistic variability exhibited by humans well. This form of statistical assessment is difficult to perform at the passage level, for it requires acceptability judgements (i.e., human evaluation) or a robust automated proxy (which is non-trivial). At the word level, however, given some context, samples from an LM can be assessed via exact matching against a prerecorded dataset of alternative single-word continuations of the available context. We exploit this fact and evaluate the LM's ability to reproduce variability that humans (in particular, a population of English speakers) exhibit in the 'next word prediction' task. This can be seen as assessing a form of calibration, which, in the context of text classification, Baan et al. (2022) termed calibration to human uncertainty. We assess GPT2, BLOOM and ChatGPT and find that they exhibit fairly low calibration to human uncertainty. We also verify the failure of expected calibration error (ECE) to reflect this, and as such, advise the community against relying on it in this setting. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2402_17527 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Predict the Next Word: Humans exhibit uncertainty in this task and language models _____ Ilia, Evgenia Aziz, Wilker Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Language models (LMs) are statistical models trained to assign probability to human-generated text. As such, it is reasonable to question whether they approximate linguistic variability exhibited by humans well. This form of statistical assessment is difficult to perform at the passage level, for it requires acceptability judgements (i.e., human evaluation) or a robust automated proxy (which is non-trivial). At the word level, however, given some context, samples from an LM can be assessed via exact matching against a prerecorded dataset of alternative single-word continuations of the available context. We exploit this fact and evaluate the LM's ability to reproduce variability that humans (in particular, a population of English speakers) exhibit in the 'next word prediction' task. This can be seen as assessing a form of calibration, which, in the context of text classification, Baan et al. (2022) termed calibration to human uncertainty. We assess GPT2, BLOOM and ChatGPT and find that they exhibit fairly low calibration to human uncertainty. We also verify the failure of expected calibration error (ECE) to reflect this, and as such, advise the community against relying on it in this setting. |
| title | Predict the Next Word: Humans exhibit uncertainty in this task and language models _____ |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17527 |