Abstract:Motivated by the rapid ascent of Large Language Models (LLMs) and debates about the extent to which they possess human-level qualities, we propose a framework for testing whether any agent (be it a machine or a human) understands a subject matter. In Turing-test fashion, the framework is based solely on the agent's performance, and specifically on how well it answers questions. Elements of the framework include circumscribing the set of questions (the "scope of understanding"), requiring general competence ("passing grade"), avoiding "ridiculous answers", but still allowing wrong and "I don't know" answers to some questions. Reaching certainty about these conditions requires exhaustive testing of the questions which is impossible for nontrivial scopes, but we show how high confidence can be achieved via random sampling and the application of probabilistic confidence bounds. We also show that accompanying answers with explanations can improve the sample complexity required to achieve acceptable bounds, because an explanation of an answer implies the ability to answer many similar questions. According to our framework, current LLMs cannot be said to understand nontrivial domains, but as the framework provides a practical recipe for testing understanding, it thus also constitutes a tool for building AI agents that do understand.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is the definition of the concept of "understanding" and its evaluation methods. Specifically, the author proposes a framework based on large - language models (LLMs), aiming to test whether any agent (whether machine or human) truly understands a certain topic. The main contributions of the paper include: 1. **Defining understanding**: The author provides a mathematical definition to describe what "understanding" is. They believe that understanding a domain means being able to answer a specific set of questions in that domain, and these answers need to meet certain criteria, such as performing well overall (i.e., the average score exceeds a certain threshold), and rarely giving absurd answers (i.e., the probability of giving absurd answers is extremely low). 2. **Evaluation methods**: Since directly verifying whether an agent understands a certain domain is usually infeasible in practice (especially when the set of questions is very large or infinite), the author proposes a method of randomly sampling questions and applying probability confidence intervals to evaluate the understanding ability of the agent. This method can, with a high probability, determine whether an agent understands a certain domain under conditions of incomplete certainty. 3. **The role of explanations**: The author also explores how the explanations provided along with the answers can reduce the required sample size, thereby improving the evaluation efficiency. Explanations can not only provide an understanding of individual questions but also implicitly demonstrate the ability to understand similar questions. Through these contributions, the paper not only provides a method for evaluating the understanding ability of agents but also provides a theoretical basis for designing and improving AI systems.

Understanding Understanding: A Pragmatic Framework Motivated by Large Language Models

The Debate Over Understanding in AI's Large Language Models

Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding

The debate over understanding in AI’s large language models

LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed

Large Language Models and the Reverse Turing Test

Can I understand what I create? Self-Knowledge Evaluation of Large Language Models

Do large language models "understand" their knowledge?

A Perspective on Large Language Models, Intelligent Machines, and Knowledge Acquisition

On General Language Understanding

Does GPT Really Get It? A Hierarchical Scale to Quantify Human vs AI's Understanding of Algorithms

Testing AI on language comprehension tasks reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning

From Form(s) to Meaning: Probing the Semantic Depths of Language Models Using Multisense Consistency

Can large language models understand uncommon meanings of common words?

Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong

The Importance of Understanding Language in Large Language Models

Extending Machine Language Models toward Human-Level Language Understanding

"Understanding AI": Semantic Grounding in Large Language Models

Self-Directed Turing Test for Large Language Models

Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans

Can Large Language Models Understand DL-Lite Ontologies? An Empirical Study