← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-srw.66 · 记录 #1
Understanding Conversational Implicatures in Humans and LLMs
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:44
摘要
In conversational implicatures, speakers convey hidden intended meanings beyond the literal content of their utterances, and hearers are expected to infer what is implied. This study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) interpret conversational implicatures, using human interpretation as a baseline and gold standard for comparison. The same experiments were conducted with two types of participants: humans and LLMs. Two metrics were adopted: a surprisal-based metric and a response-based metric. The results suggest that the response-based metric demonstrates higher accuracy, comparable to human responses, than the surprisal-based metric. In particular, humans and LLMs using the response-based metric performed better in the literal condition than in the implied condition. Additionally, they were more sensitive to capturing implied meanings for some-all trigger than for other triggers, whereas they showed lower performance on Manner implicatures. Overall, LLMs employing the response-based metric tend to exhibit human-like behavior, but still diverge from humans in their understanding of conversational implicatures.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Understanding Conversational Implicatures in Humans and LLMs
In conversational implicatures, speakers convey hidden intended meanings beyond the literal content of their utterances, and hearers are expected to infer what is implied. This study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) interpret conversational implicatures, using human interpretation as a baseline and gold standard for comparison. The same experiments were conducted with two types of participants: humans and LLMs. Two metrics were adopted: a surprisal-based metric and a response-based metric. The results suggest that the response-based metric demonstrates higher accuracy, comparable to human responses, than the surprisal-based metric. In particular, humans and LLMs using the response-based metric performed better in the literal condition than in the implied condition. Additionally, they were more sensitive to capturing implied meanings for some-all trigger than for other triggers, whereas they showed lower performance on Manner implicatures. Overall, LLMs employing the response-based metric tend to exhibit human-like behavior, but still diverge from humans in their understanding of conversational implicatures.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗