mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Two Word Test: A Semantic Benchmark for Large Language Models

arXiv 2306.04610 ↗First posted 7 Jun 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 that can assess semantic abilities of LLMs using two-word phrases using a task that can be performed relatively easily by humans without advanced training. Combining multiple words into a single concept is a fundamental aspect of human language and intelligence. The test requires meaningfulness judgments of 1768 noun-noun combinations that have been rated as meaningful (e.g., baby boy) or not meaningful (e.g., goat sky). by 150 human raters. We provide versions of the task that probe meaningfulness ratings on a 0-4 scale as well as binary judgments. We conducted a series of experiments using the TWT on GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard, with both versions. Results demonstrated that, compared to humans, all models perform poorly at rating meaningfulness of these phrases. GPT-3.5 and Bard are also unable to make binary discriminations between sensible and nonsense phrases as making sense. GPT-4 makes a substantial improvement in binary discrimination of combinatorial phrases but is still significantly worse than human performance. The TWT can be used to understand the limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs, and potentially improve them. The test also reminds us that caution is warranted in attributing 'true understanding' or AGI to LLMs. TWT is available at: https://github.com/NickRiccardi/two-word-test

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2023.

Builds on

12 of 19 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,326
  3. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
  4. 2023Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionalitycited by 503
  5. 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?cited by 488
  6. 2021The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translationcited by 161
  7. 2022The Debate Over Understanding in AI's Large Language Modelscited by 142
  8. 2020How Can We Accelerate Progress Towards Human-like Linguistic Generalization?cited by 114
  9. 2021Competency Problems: On Finding and Removing Artifacts in Language Datacited by 91
  10. 2023ChatGPT is a Knowledgeable but Inexperienced Solver: An Investigation of Commonsense Problem in Large Language Modelscited by 63
  11. 2022What Do NLP Researchers Believe? Results of the NLP Community Metasurveycited by 28
  12. 2022Machine Reading, Fast and Slow: When Do Models "Understand" Language?cited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 3.

5 papers.