Implicit meanings are integral to human communication, making it essential for language models to be capable of identifying and interpreting them. Grice (1975) proposed a set of conversational maxims that guide cooperative dialogue, noting that speakers may deliberately violate these principles to express meanings beyond literal words, and that listeners, in turn, recognize such violations to draw pragmatic inferences. Building on Surian et al. (1996)'s study of children's sensitivity to violations of Gricean maxims, we introduce a novel benchmark to test whether language models pretrained on less than 10M and less than 100M tokens can distinguish maxim-adhering from maxim-violating utterances. We compare these BabyLMs across five maxims and situate their performance relative to children and a Large Language Model (LLM) pretrained on 3T tokens. We find that overall, models trained on less than 100M tokens outperform those trained on less than 10M, yet fall short of child-level and LLM competence. Our results suggest that modest data increases improve some aspects of pragmatic behavior, leading to finer-grained differentiation between pragmatic dimensions.

Referring Expression Generation (REG) is a core task for evaluating the pragmatic competence of vision-language systems, requiring not only accurate semantic grounding but also adherence to principles of cooperative communication (Grice, 1975). However, current evaluations of vision-language models (VLMs) often overlook the pragmatic dimension, reducing REG to a region-based captioning task and neglecting Gricean maxims. In this work, we revisit REG from a pragmatic perspective, introducing a new dataset (RefOI) of 1.5k images annotated with both written and spoken referring expressions. Through a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art VLMs, we identify three key failures of pragmatic competence: (1) failure to uniquely identify the referent, (2) inclusion of excessive or irrelevant information, and (3) misalignment with human pragmatic preference, such as the underuse of minimal spatial cues. We also show that standard automatic evaluations fail to capture these pragmatic violations, reinforcing superficial cues rather than genuine referential success. Our findings call for a renewed focus on pragmatically informed models and evaluation frameworks that align with real human communication.

Today, large language models are widely used as judges to evaluate responses from other language models. Hence, it is imperative to benchmark and improve these LLM-judges on real-world language model usage: a typical human-assistant conversation is lengthy, and shows significant diversity in topics, intents, and requirements across turns, e.g. social interactions, task requests, feedback. We present Amulet, a framework that leverages pertinent linguistic concepts of dialog-acts and maxims to improve the accuracy of LLM-judges on preference data with complex, multi-turn conversational context. Amulet presents valuable insights about (a) the communicative structures and intents present in the conversation (dialog acts), and (b) the satisfaction of conversational principles (maxims) by the preference responses, and uses them to make judgments. On four challenging datasets, Amulet shows that (a) humans frequently (60 to 70 percent of the time) change their intents from one turn of the conversation to the next, and (b) in 75 percent of instances, the preference responses can be differentiated via dialog acts and/or maxims, reiterating the latter's significance in judging such data. Amulet can be used either as a judge by applying the framework to a single LLM, or integrated into a jury with different LLM judges; our judges and juries show strong improvements on relevant baselines for all four datasets.

We propose a simple, unsupervised method that injects pragmatic principles in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks such as Dense Passage Retrieval to enhance the utility of retrieved contexts. Our approach first identifies which sentences in a pool of documents retrieved by RAG are most relevant to the question at hand, cover all the topics addressed in the input question and no more, and then highlights these sentences within their context, before they are provided to the LLM, without truncating or altering the context in any other way. We show that this simple idea brings consistent improvements in experiments on three question answering tasks (ARC-Challenge, PubHealth and PopQA) using five different LLMs. It notably enhances relative accuracy by up to 19.7% on PubHealth and 10% on ARC-Challenge compared to a conventional RAG system.

Modern language models, while sophisticated, exhibit some inherent shortcomings, particularly in conversational settings. We claim that many of the observed shortcomings can be attributed to violation of one or more conversational principles. By drawing upon extensive research from both the social science and AI communities, we propose a set of maxims -- quantity, quality, relevance, manner, benevolence, and transparency -- for describing effective human-AI conversation. We first justify the applicability of the first four maxims (from Grice) in the context of human-AI interactions. We then argue that two new maxims, benevolence (concerning the generation of, and engagement with, harmful content) and transparency (concerning recognition of one's knowledge boundaries, operational constraints, and intents), are necessary for addressing behavior unique to modern human-AI interactions. We evaluate the degree to which various language models are able to understand these maxims and find that models possess an internal prioritization of principles that can significantly impact their ability to interpret the maxims accurately.

As the capabilities of LLMs expand, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate them beyond basic knowledge assessment, focusing on higher-level language understanding. This study introduces MultiPragEval, a robust test suite designed for the multilingual pragmatic evaluation of LLMs across English, German, Korean, and Chinese. Comprising 1200 question units categorized according to Grice's Cooperative Principle and its four conversational maxims, MultiPragEval enables an in-depth assessment of LLMs' contextual awareness and their ability to infer implied meanings. Our findings demonstrate that Claude3-Opus significantly outperforms other models in all tested languages, establishing a state-of-the-art in the field. Among open-source models, Solar-10.7B and Qwen1.5-14B emerge as strong competitors. This study not only leads the way in the multilingual evaluation of LLMs in pragmatic inference but also provides valuable insights into the nuanced capabilities necessary for advanced language comprehension in AI systems.

Understanding the non-literal meaning of an utterance is critical for large language models (LLMs) to become human-like social communicators. In this work, we introduce SwordsmanImp, the first Chinese multi-turn-dialogue-based dataset aimed at conversational implicature, sourced from dialogues in the Chinese sitcom $\textit{My Own Swordsman}$. It includes 200 carefully handcrafted questions, all annotated on which Gricean maxims have been violated. We test eight close-source and open-source LLMs under two tasks: a multiple-choice question task and an implicature explanation task. Our results show that GPT-4 attains human-level accuracy (94%) on multiple-choice questions. CausalLM demonstrates a 78.5% accuracy following GPT-4. Other models, including GPT-3.5 and several open-source models, demonstrate a lower accuracy ranging from 20% to 60% on multiple-choice questions. Human raters were asked to rate the explanation of the implicatures generated by LLMs on their reasonability, logic and fluency. While all models generate largely fluent and self-consistent text, their explanations score low on reasonability except for GPT-4, suggesting that most LLMs cannot produce satisfactory explanations of the implicatures in the conversation. Moreover, we find LLMs' performance does not vary significantly by Gricean maxims, suggesting that LLMs do not seem to process implicatures derived from different maxims differently. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/sjtu-compling/llm-pragmatics.

The current evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) predominantly relies on benchmarks focusing on their embedded knowledge by testing through multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a format inherently suited for automated evaluation. Our study extends this evaluation to explore LLMs' pragmatic competence--a facet previously underexamined before the advent of sophisticated LLMs, specifically in the context of Korean. We employ two distinct evaluation setups: the conventional MCQ format, adapted for automatic evaluation, and Open-Ended Questions (OEQs), assessed by human experts, to examine LLMs' narrative response capabilities without predefined options. Our findings reveal that GPT-4 excels, scoring 81.11 and 85.69 in the MCQ and OEQ setups, respectively, with HyperCLOVA X, an LLM optimized for Korean, closely following, especially in the OEQ setup, demonstrating a score of 81.56 with a marginal difference of 4.13 points compared to GPT-4. Furthermore, while few-shot learning strategies generally enhance LLM performance, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting introduces a bias toward literal interpretations, hindering accurate pragmatic inference. Considering the growing expectation for LLMs to understand and produce language that aligns with human communicative norms, our findings emphasize the importance for advancing LLMs' abilities to grasp and convey sophisticated meanings beyond mere literal interpretations.

We consider the problem of learning rules from natural language text sources. These sources, such as news articles and web texts, are created by a writer to communicate information to a reader, where the writer and reader share substantial domain knowledge. Consequently, the texts tend to be concise and mention the minimum information necessary for the reader to draw the correct conclusions. We study the problem of learning domain knowledge from such concise texts, which is an instance of the general problem of learning in the presence of missing data. However, unlike standard approaches to missing data, in this setting we know that facts are more likely to be missing from the text in cases where the reader can infer them from the facts that are mentioned combined with the domain knowledge.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life, their capabilities to understand and emulate human cognition are under steady examination. This study investigates the ability of LLMs to comprehend and interpret linguistic pragmatics, an aspect of communication that considers context and implied meanings. Using Grice's communication principles, LLMs and human subjects (N=76) were evaluated based on their responses to various dialogue-based tasks. The findings revealed the superior performance and speed of LLMs, particularly GPT4, over human subjects in interpreting pragmatics. GPT4 also demonstrated accuracy in the pre-testing of human-written samples, indicating its potential in text analysis. In a comparative analysis of LLMs using human individual and average scores, the models exhibited significant chronological improvement. The models were ranked from lowest to highest score, with GPT2 positioned at 78th place, GPT3 ranking at 23rd, Bard at 10th, GPT3.5 placing 5th, Best Human scoring 2nd, and GPT4 achieving the top spot. The findings highlight the remarkable progress made in the development and performance of these LLMs. Future studies should consider diverse subjects, multiple languages, and other cognitive aspects to fully comprehend the capabilities of LLMs. This research holds significant implications for the development and application of AI-based models in communication-centered sectors.