Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
60 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
8 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition (2403.00126v2)

Published 29 Feb 2024 in cs.CL
FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition

Abstract: LLMs are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. However, such a paradigm fails to comprehensively differentiate the fine-grained language and cognitive skills, rendering the lack of sufficient interpretation to LLMs' capabilities. In this paper, we present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation. Specifically, we formulate LLMs' evaluation in a multi-dimensional and explainable manner by dissociating the language-related capabilities and the cognition-related ones. Besides, through extracting the intermediate reasoning from LLMs, we further break down the process of applying a specific capability into three sub-steps: recalling relevant knowledge, utilizing knowledge, and solving problems. Finally, FAC$2$E evaluates each sub-step of each fine-grained capability, providing a two-faceted diagnosis for LLMs. Utilizing FAC$2$E, we identify a common shortfall in knowledge utilization among models and propose a straightforward, knowledge-enhanced method to mitigate this issue. Our results not only showcase promising performance enhancements but also highlight a direction for future LLM advancements.

PDF HTML Abstract

Evaluating LLMs: Introducing the \texttt{FAC$^2$E} Framework

The Concept Behind \texttt{FAC$^2$E}

In light of the remarkable advancements in LLMs, our ability to evaluate these models comprehensively becomes crucial. Traditional benchmarks often focus on overall task performance, which, while useful, does not fully capture the nuanced capabilities of LLMs. To address this gap, we introduce \texttt{FAC$^2$E} - a framework designed for the Fine-grained and Cognition-grounded evaluation of LLMs' Capabilities. Distinctively, \texttt{FAC$^2$E} leverages a multi-dimensional approach to differentiate between language-related and cognition-related capabilities, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of these complex models.

Capabilities and Their Axes

\texttt{FAC$^2$E} categorizes LLM capabilities into four axes:

  • \textsc{Linguistic Knowledge} focuses on grammatical and semantic aspects.
  • \textsc{Formal Knowledge} assesses models on their ability to conduct symbolic reasoning.
  • \textsc{World Modeling} evaluates comprehension and application of factual and commonsense knowledge.
  • \textsc{Social Modeling} looks into inferencing mental states and beyond-literal contents comprehension.

Each capability axis encompasses various specific skills crucial for understanding natural language and solving tasks that require cognition.

Framework Components and Evaluation Process

\texttt{FAC$^2$E} performs an evaluation by breaking down tasks into three steps: recalling relevant knowledge, utilizing knowledge, and problem-solving. This process enables a more granular assessment of LLMs, pinpointing their strengths and weaknesses in each step. Through this framework, \texttt{FAC$^2$E} not only assesses the effectiveness of knowledge recall but also the model's ability to apply this knowledge contextually.

Insights and Implications

Preliminary evaluations using \texttt{FAC$^2$E} reveal significant findings:

  1. Knowledge Utilization Gap: There's a pronounced shortfall in how models utilize knowledge, despite demonstrating strong recall abilities. This gap suggests a potential area for enhancing LLMs by focusing on improving knowledge application mechanisms within the models.
  2. Distinction between Language and Cognition: The framework's results underscore the importance of treating language processing and cognitive processing as distinct capabilities within LLMs. This distinction has profound implications on how we approach model training and evaluation moving forward.
  3. Direction for Future Development: The insights provided by \texttt{FAC$^2$E} not only highlight current limitations but also offer clear pathways for future advancements in LLM research. Specifically, a focused approach on improving knowledge utilization could drive the next wave of breakthroughs in the field.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the \texttt{FAC$^2$E} framework represents a significant step forward in our quest to better understand and evaluate LLMs. By adopting a nuanced approach that accounts for both language and cognition-related capabilities, \texttt{FAC$^2$E} offers the research community a robust tool for dissecting the complexities of modern LLMs. Through continued refinement and application of this framework, we can anticipate not only more sophisticated evaluations but also targeted improvements in LLM performance and reliability.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown Bookmark Chat Bubble Oval Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Chat (Pro)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (86)
  1. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774.
  2. Ralph Adolphs. 2009. The social brain: neural basis of social knowledge. Annual review of psychology, 60:693–716.
  3. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862.
  4. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 675–718, Nusa Dua, Bali. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. A functional dissociation between language and multiple-demand systems revealed in patterns of bold signal fluctuations. Journal of neurophysiology, 112(5):1105–1118.
  6. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1877–1901.
  7. Raymond B Cattell. 1963. Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of educational psychology, 54(1):1.
  8. Journey to the center of the knowledge neurons: Discoveries of language-independent knowledge neurons and degenerate knowledge neurons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13198.
  9. Instructeval: Towards holistic evaluation of instruction-tuned large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04757.
  10. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality. See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023).
  11. François Chollet. 2019. On the measure of intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547.
  12. Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8493–8502, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  13. DROP: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2368–2378, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  14. John Duncan. 2010. The multiple-demand (md) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(4):172–179.
  15. Evelina Fedorenko and Rosemary Varley. 2016. Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1):132–153.
  16. Rnns as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01329.
  17. A framework for few-shot language model evaluation.
  18. Hila Gonen and Yoav Goldberg. 2019. Lipstick on a pig: Debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them. In Proceedings of the 2019 Workshop on Widening NLP, pages 60–63, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Google. 2023. bard.
  20. The false promise of imitating proprietary llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15717.
  21. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07597.
  22. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  23. A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4194–4213, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  24. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088.
  25. MAWPS: A math word problem repository. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1152–1157, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  26. Michal Kosinski. 2023. Theory of mind might have spontaneously emerged in large language models. Preprint at https://arxiv. org/abs/2302.02083.
  27. Klaus Krippendorff. 2004. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human communication research, 30(3):411–433.
  28. HaluEval: A large-scale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6449–6464, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  29. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110.
  30. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688.
  31. Gender and representation bias in GPT-3 generated stories. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding, pages 48–55, Virtual. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  32. Dissociating language and thought in large language models: a cognitive perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06627.
  33. On the educational impact of chatgpt: Is artificial intelligence ready to obtain a university degree? In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, pages 47–53.
  34. Rebecca Marvin and Tal Linzen. 2018. Targeted syntactic evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192–1202, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  35. Mass-editing memory in a transformer. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
  36. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12983.
  37. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3470–3487, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  38. Thought beyond language: Neural dissociation of algebra and natural language. Psychological science, 23(8):914–922.
  39. Capabilities of gpt-4 on medical challenge problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375.
  40. OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt: Optimizing language models for dialogue.
  41. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  42. Erika Petersen and Christopher Potts. 2023. Lexical semantics with large language models: A case study of English “break”. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 490–511, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  43. Language models as knowledge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463–2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  44. On extractive and abstractive neural document summarization with transformer language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9308–9319, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  45. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21:1–67.
  46. Machine reading, fast and slow: When do models “understand” language? In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 78–93, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
  47. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022.
  48. Qa dataset explosion: A taxonomy of nlp resources for question answering and reading comprehension. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(10):1–45.
  49. A new fun and robust version of an fmri localizer for the frontotemporal language system. Cognitive neuroscience, 8(3):167–176.
  50. Unsupervised commonsense question answering with self-talk. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4615–4629, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  51. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
  52. Assessing the benchmarking capacity of machine reading comprehension datasets. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8918–8927.
  53. Mirac Suzgun and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2024. Meta-prompting: Enhancing language models with task-agnostic scaffolding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12954.
  54. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149–4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  55. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca.
  56. Brian Thompson and Matt Post. 2020. Automatic machine translation evaluation in many languages via zero-shot paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 90–121, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  57. Diagnosing the first-order logical reasoning ability through LogicNLI. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3738–3747, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  58. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.
  59. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288.
  60. Tomer Ullman. 2023. Large language models fail on trivial alterations to theory-of-mind tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08399.
  61. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
  62. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  63. Decodingtrust: A comprehensive assessment of trustworthiness in gpt models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11698.
  64. On the robustness of chatgpt: An adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. In ICLR 2023 Workshop on Trustworthy and Reliable Large-Scale Machine Learning Models.
  65. Disco-bench: A discourse-aware evaluation benchmark for language modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08074.
  66. Feeding what you need by understanding what you learned. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5858–5874, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  67. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04751.
  68. Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on 1600+ NLP tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5085–5109, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  69. BLiMP: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for English. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:377–392.
  70. Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(9):1526–1541.
  71. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
  72. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824–24837.
  73. Structural supervision improves learning of non-local grammatical dependencies. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3302–3312, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  74. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38–45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  75. Less: Selecting influential data for targeted instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04333.
  76. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244.
  77. Fantastic questions and where to find them: FairytaleQA – an authentic dataset for narrative comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 447–460, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  78. Glue-x: Evaluating natural language understanding models from an out-of-distribution generalization perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08073.
  79. Flask: Fine-grained language model evaluation based on alignment skill sets. In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Instruction Tuning and Instruction Following.
  80. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34.
  81. HellaSwag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4791–4800, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  82. Unveiling a core linguistic region in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14928.
  83. Agieval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06364.
  84. Solving challenging math word problems using gpt-4 code interpreter with code-based self-verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07921.
  85. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
  86. Think before you speak: Explicitly generating implicit commonsense knowledge for response generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237–1252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Xiaoqiang Wang (53 papers)
  2. Bang Liu (93 papers)
  3. Lingfei Wu (135 papers)
  4. Tengfei Ma (73 papers)