Understand the Implication: Learning to Think for Pragmatic Understanding

Pragmatics, the ability to infer meaning beyond literal interpretation, is crucial for social cognition and communication. While LLMs have been benchmarked for their pragmatic understanding, improving their performance remains underexplored. Existing methods rely on annotated labels but overlook the reasoning process humans naturally use to interpret implicit meaning. To bridge this gap, we introduce a novel pragmatic dataset, ImpliedMeaningPreference, that includes explicit reasoning (thoughts) for both correct and incorrect interpretations. Through preference-tuning and supervised fine-tuning, we demonstrate that thought-based learning significantly enhances LLMs' pragmatic understanding, improving accuracy by 11.12% across model families. We further discuss a transfer-learning study where we evaluate the performance of thought-based training for the other tasks of pragmatics (presupposition, deixis) that are not seen during the training time and observe an improvement of 16.10% compared to label-trained models.

PUB: A Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark for Assessing LLMs' Pragmatics Capabilities

LLMs have demonstrated remarkable capability for understanding semantics, but they often struggle with understanding pragmatics. To demonstrate this fact, we release a Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark (PUB) dataset consisting of fourteen tasks in four pragmatics phenomena, namely, Implicature, Presupposition, Reference, and Deixis. We curated high-quality test sets for each task, consisting of Multiple Choice Question Answers (MCQA). PUB includes a total of 28k data points, 6.1k of which have been created by us, and the rest are adapted from existing datasets. We evaluated nine models varying in the number of parameters and type of training. Our study indicates that fine-tuning for instruction-following and chat significantly enhances the pragmatics capabilities of smaller language models. However, for larger models, the base versions perform comparably with their chat-adapted counterparts. Additionally, there is a noticeable performance gap between human capabilities and model capabilities. Furthermore, unlike the consistent performance of humans across various tasks, the models demonstrate variability in their proficiency, with performance levels fluctuating due to different hints and the complexities of tasks within the same dataset. Overall, the benchmark aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of LLM's ability to handle real-world language tasks that require pragmatic reasoning.