Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18120 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910977112408064 |
|---|---|
| author | Hu, Xiaoyang Lewis, Richard L. |
| author_facet | Hu, Xiaoyang Lewis, Richard L. |
| contents | Cognitive tasks originally developed for humans are now increasingly used to study language models. While applying these tasks is often straightforward, interpreting their results can be challenging. In particular, when a model underperforms, it is often unclear whether this results from a limitation in the cognitive ability being tested or a failure to understand the task itself. A recent study argues that GPT 3.5's declining performance on 2-back and 3-back tasks reflects a working memory capacity limit similar to humans (Gong et al., 2024). By analyzing a range of open-source language models of varying performance levels on these tasks, we show that the poor performance is due at least in part to a limitation in task comprehension and task set maintenance. We challenge the best-performing model with progressively harder versions of the task (up to 10-back) and experiment with alternative prompting strategies, before analyzing model attentions. Our larger aim is to contribute to the ongoing conversation around refining methodologies for the cognitive evaluation of language models. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2412_18120 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Do Language Models Understand the Cognitive Tasks Given to Them? Investigations with the N-Back Paradigm Hu, Xiaoyang Lewis, Richard L. Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Cognitive tasks originally developed for humans are now increasingly used to study language models. While applying these tasks is often straightforward, interpreting their results can be challenging. In particular, when a model underperforms, it is often unclear whether this results from a limitation in the cognitive ability being tested or a failure to understand the task itself. A recent study argues that GPT 3.5's declining performance on 2-back and 3-back tasks reflects a working memory capacity limit similar to humans (Gong et al., 2024). By analyzing a range of open-source language models of varying performance levels on these tasks, we show that the poor performance is due at least in part to a limitation in task comprehension and task set maintenance. We challenge the best-performing model with progressively harder versions of the task (up to 10-back) and experiment with alternative prompting strategies, before analyzing model attentions. Our larger aim is to contribute to the ongoing conversation around refining methodologies for the cognitive evaluation of language models. |
| title | Do Language Models Understand the Cognitive Tasks Given to Them? Investigations with the N-Back Paradigm |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18120 |