mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Systematicity in GPT-3's Interpretation of Novel English Noun Compounds

arXiv 2210.09492 ↗First posted 18 Oct 2022cs.CLcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Levin et al. (2019) show experimentally that the interpretations of novel English noun compounds (e.g., stew skillet), while not fully compositional, are highly predictable based on whether the modifier and head refer to artifacts or natural kinds. Is the large language model GPT-3 governed by the same interpretive principles? To address this question, we first compare Levin et al.'s experimental data with GPT-3 generations, finding a high degree of similarity. However, this evidence is consistent with GPT3 reasoning only about specific lexical items rather than the more abstract conceptual categories of Levin et al.'s theory. To probe more deeply, we construct prompts that require the relevant kind of conceptual reasoning. Here, we fail to find convincing evidence that GPT-3 is reasoning about more than just individual lexical items. These results highlight the importance of controlling for low-level distributional regularities when assessing whether a large language model latently encodes a deeper theory.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2022.

Builds on

6 of 25 references.

References · 6

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2018Texygen: A Benchmarking Platform for Text Generation Modelscited by 484
  3. 2021It's not Rocket Science : Interpreting Figurative Language in Narrativescited by 39
  4. 2022AmbiPun: Generating Humorous Puns with Ambiguous Contextcited by 21
  5. 2020Will it Unblend?cited by 11
  6. 2021Characterizing Idioms: Conventionality and Contingencycited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 3; 2025: 2.

9 papers.