ArticleScientific reports2024
The Two Word Test as a semantic benchmark for large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities recently, including passing advanced professional exams and demanding benchmark tests. This performance has led many to suggest that they are close to achieving humanlike or "true" understanding of language, and even artificial general intelligence (AGI). Here, we provide a new open-source benchmark, the Two Word Test (TWT), that can assess semantic abilities of LLMs using two-word phrases in a task that can be performed relatively easily by humans without advanced training. Combining multiple words into a single concept is a fundamental linguistic and conceptual operation routinely performed by people. The test requires meaningfulness judgments of 1768 noun-noun combinations that have been rated as meaningful (e.g., baby boy) or as having low meaningfulness (e.g., goat sky) by human raters. This novel test differs from existing benchmarks that rely on logical reasoning, inference, puzzle-solving, or domain expertise. We provide versions of the task that probe meaningfulness ratings on a 0-4 scale as well as binary judgments. With both versions, we conducted a series of experiments using the TWT on GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Claude-3-Optus, and Gemini-1-Pro-001. Results demonstrated that, compared to humans, all models performed relatively poorly at rating meaningfulness of these phrases. GPT-3.5-turbo, Gemini-1.0-Pro-001 and GPT-4-turbo were also unable to make binary discriminations between sensible and nonsense phrases, with these models consistently judging nonsensical phrases as making sense. Claude-3-Opus made a substantial improvement in binary discrimination of combinatorial phrases but was still significantly worse than human performance. The TWT can be used to understand and assess the limitations of current LLMs, and potentially improve them. The test also reminds us that caution is warranted in attributing "true" or human-level understanding to LLMs based only on tests that are challenging for humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.