'Probably' doesn't mean the same thing to your AI as it does to you When a human says an event is "probable" or "likely," people generally have a shared, if fuzzy, understanding of what that means. But when an AI chatbot like ChatGPT uses the same word, it's not assessing the odds the way we do, my colleagues and I found. We recently published a study in the journal NPJ Complexity that suggests that, while large language model AIs excel at conversation, they often fail to align with humans when communicating uncertainty . The research focused on words of estimative probability, which include terms like "maybe," "probably" and "almost certain." By comparing how AI models and humans map these words to numerical percentages, we uncovered significant gaps between humans and large language models.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in generating human-like text and solving reasoning tasks of moderate complexity, such as question-answering and mathematical problem-solving. However, their capabilities in tasks requiring deeper cognitive skills, such as common-sense understanding and abstract reasoning, remain under-explored. In this paper, we systematically evaluate abstract common-sense reasoning in LLMs using the ConceptNet knowledge graph. We propose two prompting approaches: instruct prompting, where models predict plausible semantic relationships based on provided definitions, and few-shot prompting, where models identify relations using examples as guidance. Our experiments with the gpt-4o-mini model show that in instruct prompting, consistent performance is obtained when ranking multiple relations but with substantial decline when the model is restricted to predicting only one relation. In few-shot prompting, the model's accuracy improves significantly when selecting from five relations rather than the full set, although with notable bias toward certain relations. These results suggest significant gaps still, even in commercially used LLMs' abstract common-sense reasoning abilities, compared to human-level understanding. However, the findings also highlight the promise of careful prompt engineering, based on selective retrieval, for obtaining better performance.

Entity Resolution (ER) is the problem of semi-automatically determining when two entities refer to the same underlying entity, with applications ranging from healthcare to e-commerce. Traditional ER solutions required considerable manual expertise, including feature engineering, as well as identification and curation of training data. In many instances, such techniques are highly dependent on the domain. With recent advent in large language models (LLMs), there is an opportunity to make ER much more seamless and domain-independent. However, it is also well known that LLMs can pose risks, and that the quality of their outputs can depend on so-called prompt engineering. Unfortunately, a systematic experimental study on the effects of different prompting methods for addressing ER, using LLMs like ChatGPT, has been lacking thus far. This paper aims to address this gap by conducting such a study. Although preliminary in nature, our results show that prompting can significantly affect the quality of ER, although it affects some metrics more than others, and can also be dataset dependent.

Entity Resolution (ER) is the problem of determining when two entities refer to the same underlying entity. The problem has been studied for over 50 years, and most recently, has taken on new importance in an era of large, heterogeneous 'knowledge graphs' published on the Web and used widely in domains as wide ranging as social media, e-commerce and search. This chapter will discuss the specific problem of named ER in the context of personal knowledge graphs (PKGs). We begin with a formal definition of the problem, and the components necessary for doing high-quality and efficient ER. We also discuss some challenges that are expected to arise for Web-scale data. Next, we provide a brief literature review, with a special focus on how existing techniques can potentially apply to PKGs. We conclude the chapter by covering some applications, as well as promising directions for future research.