126:, which involves free-flowing, unrestricted conversations in English between human judges and computer programs over a text-only channel (such as teletype). In general, the machine passes the test if interrogators are not able to tell the difference between it and a human in a five-minute conversation.
936:
Brown, Tom B.; Mann, Benjamin; Ryder, Nick; Subbiah, Melanie; Kaplan, Jared; Dhariwal, Prafulla; Neelakantan, Arvind; Shyam, Pranav; Sastry, Girish; Askell, Amanda; Agarwal, Sandhini; Herbert-Voss, Ariel; Krueger, Gretchen; Henighan, Tom; Child, Rewon; Ramesh, Aditya; Ziegler, Daniel M.; Wu, Jeffrey;
329:
The 2016 Winograd Schema
Challenge was run on July 11, 2016 at IJCAI-16. There were four contestants. The first round of the contest was to solve PDPs—pronoun disambiguation problems, adapted from literary sources, not constructed as pairs of sentences. The highest score achieved was 58% correct, by
195:
The schema challenge question is, "Does the pronoun 'they' refer to the city councilmen or the demonstrators?" Switching between the two instances of the schema changes the answer. The answer is immediate for a human reader, but proves difficult to emulate in machines. Levesque argues that knowledge
337:
achieved 70% accuracy on 70 manually selected problems from the original 273 Winograd schema dataset. In June 2018, a score of 63.7% accuracy was achieved on the full dataset using an ensemble of recurrent neural network language models, marking the first use of deep neural networks that learn from
310:
In 2016 and 2018, Nuance
Communications sponsored a competition, offering a grand prize of $ 25,000 for the top scorer above 90% (for comparison, humans correctly answer to 92–96% of WSC questions). However, nobody came close to winning the prize in 2016 and the 2018 competition was cancelled for
159:
The key factor in the WSC is the special format of its questions, which are derived from
Winograd schemas. Questions of this form may be tailored to require knowledge and commonsense reasoning in a variety of domains. They must also be carefully written not to betray their answers by
112:. Turing proposed that, instead of debating whether a machine can think, the science of AI should be concerned with demonstrating intelligent behavior, which can be tested. But the exact nature of the test Turing proposed has come under scrutiny, especially since an AI chatbot named
282:
One difficulty with the
Winograd schema challenge is the development of the questions. They need to be carefully tailored to ensure that they require commonsense reasoning to solve. For example, Levesque gives the following example of a so-called Winograd schema that is "too easy":
295:: in any situation, pills do not get pregnant, women do; women cannot be carcinogenic, but pills can. Thus this answer could be derived without the use of reasoning, or any understanding of the sentences' meaning—all that is necessary is data on the selectional restrictions of
330:
Quan Liu et al, of the
University of Science and Technology, China. Hence, by the rules of that challenge, no prizes were awarded, and the challenge did not proceed to the second round. The organizing committee in 2016 was Leora Morgenstern, Ernest Davis, and Charles Ortiz.
937:
Winter, Clemens; Hesse, Christopher; Chen, Mark; Sigler, Eric; Litwin, Mateusz; Gray, Scott; Chess, Benjamin; Clark, Jack; Berner, Christopher; McCandlish, Sam; Radford, Alec; et al. (2020). "Language Models are Few-Shot
Learners".
732:
The prize could not be awarded to anybody. Most of the participants showed a result close to the random choice or even worse. The second competition scheduled for 2018 was canceled due to the lack of prospective
349:
A more challenging, adversarial "Winogrande" dataset of 44,000 problems was designed in 2019. This dataset consists of fill-in-the-blank style sentences, as opposed to the pronoun format of previous datasets.
626:
814:
Liu, Quan; Jiang, Hui; Ling, Zhen-Hua; Zhu, Xiaodan; Wei, Si; Hu, Yu (2016). "Commonsense
Knowledge Enhanced Embeddings for Solving Pronoun Disambiguation Problems in Winograd Schema Challenge".
132:
announced in July 2014 that it would sponsor an annual WSC competition, with a prize of $ 25,000 for the best system that could match human performance. However, the prize is no longer offered.
116:
claimed to pass it in 2014. One of the major concerns with the Turing test is that a machine could easily pass the test with brute force and/or trickery, rather than true intelligence.
196:
plays a central role in these problems: the answer to this schema has to do with our understanding of the typical relationships between and behavior of councilmen and demonstrators.
119:
The
Winograd schema challenge was proposed in 2012 in part to ameliorate the problems that came to light with the nature of the programs that performed well on the test.
576:
203:, has compiled a list of over 140 Winograd schemas from various sources as examples of the kinds of questions that should appear on the Winograd schema challenge.
338:
independent corpora to acquire common sense knowledge. In 2019 a score of 90.1%, was achieved on the original
Winograd schema dataset by fine-tuning of the
318:
Spring
Symposium Series at Stanford University, with a special focus on the Winograd schema challenge. The organizing committee included Leora Morgenstern (
147:
Conversation: A lot of interaction may qualify as "legitimate conversation"—jokes, clever asides, points of order—without requiring intelligent reasoning.
50:, it is a multiple-choice test that employs questions of a very specific structure: they are instances of what are called Winograd schemas, named after
267:
Winograd schemas of varying difficulty may be designed, involving anything from simple cause-and-effect relationships to complex narratives of events.
236:
A special word and alternate word, such that if the special word is replaced with the alternate word, the natural resolution of the pronoun changes.
140:
The performance of Eugene Goostman exhibited some of the Turing test's problems. Levesque identifies several major issues, summarized as follows:
379:
698:
Sakaguchi, Keisuke; Le Bras, Ronan; Bhagavatula, Chandra; Choi, Yejin (2019). "WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at Scale".
354:
17:
342:
language model with appropriate WSC-like training data to avoid having to learn commonsense reasoning. The general language model
314:
The Twelfth International Symposium on the Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning was held on March 23–25, 2015 at the
796:
85:
270:
They may be constructed to test reasoning ability in specific domains (e.g., social/psychological or spatial reasoning).
1016:
899:
415:
323:
878:"Cause-Effect Knowledge Acquisition and Neural Association Model for Solving a Set of Winograd Schema Problems"
358:
248:
A machine will be given the problem in a standardized form which includes the answer choices, thus making it a
563:
Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
123:
74:
719:
Boguslavsky, I.M.; Frolova, T.I.; Iomdin, L.L.; Lazursky, A.V.; Rygaev, I.P.; Timoshenko, S.P. (2019).
728:
Proceedings of the International Conference of Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies
445:
720:
444:
Kocijan, Vid; Davis, Ernest; Lukasiewicz, Thomas; Marcus, Gary; Morgenstern, Leora (11 July 2023).
144:
Deception: The machine is forced to construct a false identity, which is not part of intelligence.
292:
161:
109:
876:
Liu, Quan; Jiang, Hui; Evdokimov, Andrew; Ling, Zhen-Hua; Zhu, Xiaodan; Wei, Si; Hu, Yu (2017).
915:
Trinh, Trieu H.; Le, Quoc V. (26 September 2019). "A Simple Method for Commonsense Reasoning".
577:"Nuance announces the Winograd Schemas Challenge to Advance Artificial Intelligence Innovation"
62:
1006:
770:
339:
129:
78:
43:
322:), Theodore Patkos (The Foundation for Research & Technology Hellas), and Robert Sloan (
77:, but Levesque argues that for Winograd schemas, the task requires the use of knowledge and
199:
Since the original proposal of the Winograd schema challenge, Ernest Davis, a professor at
66:
8:
882:
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
200:
55:
191:
The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they advocated violence.
938:
916:
815:
699:
483:
457:
172:
The first cited example of a Winograd schema (and the reason for their name) is due to
1011:
895:
858:
645:
487:
475:
188:
The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they feared violence.
885:
848:
641:
607:
525:
508:
467:
424:
556:
471:
429:
410:
249:
113:
39:
986:
745:
184:
The choices of "feared" and "advocated" turn the schema into its two instances:
150:
Evaluation: Humans make mistakes and judges often would disagree on the results.
667:
604:
The Theory of Correlation Formulas and Their Application to Discourse Coherence
529:
516:
223:
180:
The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they violence.
173:
89:
51:
890:
1000:
877:
862:
853:
836:
479:
287:
The women stopped taking pills because they were . Which individuals were ?
61:
On the surface, Winograd schema questions simply require the resolution of
504:
219:
105:
101:
47:
611:
380:"Can Winograd Schemas Replace Turing Test for Defining Human-level AI"
260:
The Winograd schema challenge has the following purported advantages:
353:
A version of the Winograd schema challenge is one part of the GLUE (
991:
943:
921:
837:"Planning, Executing, and Evaluating the Winograd Schema Challenge"
835:
Morgenstern, Leora; Davis, Ernest; Ortiz, Charles L. (March 2016).
820:
704:
462:
108:
in 1950, the Turing test plays a central role in the philosophy of
244:
Two answer choices corresponding to the noun phrases in question.
230:
70:
718:
346:
achieved a score of 88.3% without specific fine-tuning in 2020.
100:
The Winograd Schema Challenge was proposed in the spirit of the
795:
Davis, Ernest; Morgenstern, Leora; Ortiz, Charles (Fall 2017).
697:
319:
264:
Knowledge and commonsense reasoning are required to solve them.
84:
The challenge is considered defeated in 2019 since a number of
291:
The answer to this question can be determined on the basis of
211:
A Winograd schema challenge question consists of three parts:
958:
443:
343:
555:
Levesque, Hector; Davis, Ernest; Morgenstern, Leora (2012).
241:
A question asking the identity of the ambiguous pronoun, and
164:
or statistical information about the words in the sentence.
315:
215:
A sentence or brief discourse that contains the following:
987:
Website for the contest sponsored by Nuance Communications
775:
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
226:(male, female, inanimate, or group of objects or people),
554:
38:) is a test of machine intelligence proposed in 2012 by
721:"Knowledge-based approach to Winograd Schema Challenge"
233:
that may refer to either of the above noun phrases, and
935:
875:
834:
794:
311:lack of prospects; the prize is no longer offered.
357:) benchmark collection of challenges in automated
122:Turing's original proposal was what he called the
797:"The First Winograd Schema Challenge at IJCAI-16"
333:In 2017, a neural association model designed for
998:
929:
135:
813:
499:
497:
446:"The defeat of the Winograd Schema Challenge"
693:
691:
689:
606:(Thesis). UT Digital Repository. p. 6.
404:
402:
400:
494:
942:
920:
889:
852:
819:
703:
686:
659:
461:
428:
397:
355:General Language Understanding Evaluation
624:
595:
550:
548:
546:
408:
377:
73:in a statement. This makes it a task of
914:
601:
371:
46:. Designed to be an improvement on the
14:
999:
509:"Computing Machinery and Intelligence"
503:
569:
543:
206:
763:
154:
54:, professor of computer science at
24:
738:
668:"A Collection of Winograd Schemas"
618:
273:There is no need for human judges.
25:
1028:
980:
665:
335:commonsense knowledge acquisition
324:University of Illinois at Chicago
92:achieved accuracies of over 90%.
992:https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02387
627:"Understanding Natural Language"
625:Winograd, Terry (January 1972).
65:: the machine must identify the
951:
908:
869:
828:
807:
788:
712:
602:Michael, Julian (18 May 2015).
378:Ackerman, Evan (29 July 2014).
437:
359:natural-language understanding
42:, a computer scientist at the
13:
1:
558:The Winograd Schema Challenge
364:
255:
136:Weaknesses of the Turing test
646:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3
472:10.1016/j.artint.2023.103971
430:10.1016/j.artint.2014.03.007
27:Test of machine intelligence
7:
771:"AAAI 2015 Spring Symposia"
746:"Winograd Schema Challenge"
305:
277:
75:natural language processing
10:
1033:
95:
1017:Word-sense disambiguation
167:
32:Winograd schema challenge
18:Winograd Schema Challenge
854:10.1609/aimag.v37i1.2639
750:CommonsenseReasoning.org
530:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
409:Levesque, H. J. (2014).
293:selectional restrictions
162:selectional restrictions
891:10.24963/ijcai.2017/326
450:Artificial Intelligence
416:Artificial Intelligence
411:"On our best behaviour"
110:artificial intelligence
884:. pp. 2344–2350.
130:Nuance Communications
79:commonsense reasoning
44:University of Toronto
634:Cognitive Psychology
201:New York University
56:Stanford University
207:Formal description
963:GlueBenchmark.com
16:(Redirected from
1024:
974:
973:
971:
969:
959:"GLUE Benchmark"
955:
949:
948:
946:
933:
927:
926:
924:
912:
906:
905:
893:
873:
867:
866:
856:
832:
826:
825:
823:
811:
805:
804:
792:
786:
785:
783:
781:
767:
761:
760:
758:
756:
742:
736:
735:
725:
716:
710:
709:
707:
695:
684:
683:
681:
679:
663:
657:
656:
654:
652:
631:
622:
616:
615:
599:
593:
592:
590:
588:
573:
567:
566:
552:
541:
540:
538:
536:
524:(236): 433–460.
513:
507:(October 1950).
501:
492:
491:
465:
441:
435:
434:
432:
406:
395:
394:
392:
390:
375:
155:Winograd schemas
69:of an ambiguous
21:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1021:
997:
996:
983:
978:
977:
967:
965:
957:
956:
952:
934:
930:
913:
909:
902:
874:
870:
833:
829:
812:
808:
793:
789:
779:
777:
769:
768:
764:
754:
752:
744:
743:
739:
723:
717:
713:
696:
687:
677:
675:
666:Davis, Ernest.
664:
660:
650:
648:
629:
623:
619:
600:
596:
586:
584:
575:
574:
570:
553:
544:
534:
532:
511:
502:
495:
442:
438:
407:
398:
388:
386:
376:
372:
367:
308:
289:
280:
258:
250:binary decision
209:
193:
182:
170:
157:
138:
114:Eugene Goostman
98:
90:language models
40:Hector Levesque
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1030:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1009:
995:
994:
989:
982:
981:External links
979:
976:
975:
950:
928:
907:
900:
868:
827:
806:
787:
762:
737:
711:
685:
658:
617:
594:
583:. 28 July 2014
568:
542:
493:
436:
396:
369:
368:
366:
363:
307:
304:
285:
279:
276:
275:
274:
271:
268:
265:
257:
254:
246:
245:
242:
239:
238:
237:
234:
227:
224:semantic class
208:
205:
186:
178:
174:Terry Winograd
169:
166:
156:
153:
152:
151:
148:
145:
137:
134:
124:imitation game
104:. Proposed by
97:
94:
52:Terry Winograd
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1029:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1002:
993:
990:
988:
985:
984:
964:
960:
954:
945:
940:
932:
923:
918:
911:
903:
901:9780999241103
897:
892:
887:
883:
879:
872:
864:
860:
855:
850:
846:
842:
838:
831:
822:
817:
810:
802:
798:
791:
776:
772:
766:
751:
747:
741:
734:
733:participants.
729:
722:
715:
706:
701:
694:
692:
690:
673:
669:
662:
647:
643:
639:
635:
628:
621:
613:
609:
605:
598:
582:
581:Business Wire
578:
572:
564:
560:
559:
551:
549:
547:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
510:
506:
500:
498:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
464:
459:
455:
451:
447:
440:
431:
426:
422:
418:
417:
412:
405:
403:
401:
385:
384:IEEE Spectrum
381:
374:
370:
362:
360:
356:
351:
347:
345:
341:
336:
331:
327:
325:
321:
317:
312:
303:
302:
301:carcinogenic.
298:
294:
288:
284:
272:
269:
266:
263:
262:
261:
253:
251:
243:
240:
235:
232:
229:An ambiguous
228:
225:
221:
217:
216:
214:
213:
212:
204:
202:
197:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
175:
165:
163:
149:
146:
143:
142:
141:
133:
131:
127:
125:
120:
117:
115:
111:
107:
103:
93:
91:
87:
82:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
59:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
1007:Turing tests
966:. Retrieved
962:
953:
931:
910:
881:
871:
847:(1): 50–54.
844:
840:
830:
809:
800:
790:
778:. Retrieved
774:
765:
753:. Retrieved
749:
740:
731:
727:
714:
676:. Retrieved
671:
661:
649:. Retrieved
640:(1): 1–191.
637:
633:
620:
603:
597:
585:. Retrieved
580:
571:
562:
557:
533:. Retrieved
521:
515:
505:Turing, Alan
453:
449:
439:
420:
414:
387:. Retrieved
383:
373:
352:
348:
334:
332:
328:
313:
309:
300:
296:
290:
286:
281:
259:
247:
222:of the same
220:noun phrases
210:
198:
194:
190:
187:
183:
179:
171:
158:
139:
128:
121:
118:
99:
83:
60:
35:
31:
29:
841:AI Magazine
801:AI Magazine
106:Alan Turing
102:Turing test
86:transformer
48:Turing test
1001:Categories
944:2005.14165
922:1806.02847
821:1611.04146
755:24 January
730:. Moscow.
705:1907.10641
678:30 October
672:cs.nyu.edu
651:4 November
612:2152/29979
587:9 November
535:28 October
463:2201.02387
456:: 103971.
389:29 October
365:References
256:Advantages
67:antecedent
863:0738-4602
780:1 January
488:245827747
480:0004-3702
423:: 27–35.
252:problem.
1012:Pronouns
306:Activity
297:pregnant
278:Pitfalls
63:anaphora
968:30 July
231:pronoun
96:History
88:-based
71:pronoun
898:
861:
486:
478:
320:Leidos
168:Origin
939:arXiv
917:arXiv
816:arXiv
724:(PDF)
700:arXiv
674:. NYU
630:(PDF)
512:(PDF)
484:S2CID
458:arXiv
344:GPT-3
970:2019
896:ISBN
859:ISSN
782:2015
757:2020
680:2014
653:2014
589:2014
537:2014
517:Mind
476:ISSN
391:2014
340:BERT
316:AAAI
299:and
218:Two
30:The
886:doi
849:doi
642:doi
608:hdl
526:doi
522:LIX
468:doi
454:325
425:doi
421:212
326:).
36:WSC
1003::
961:.
894:.
880:.
857:.
845:37
843:.
839:.
799:.
773:.
748:.
726:.
688:^
670:.
636:.
632:.
579:.
561:.
545:^
520:.
514:.
496:^
482:.
474:.
466:.
452:.
448:.
419:.
413:.
399:^
382:.
361:.
176::
81:.
58:.
972:.
947:.
941::
925:.
919::
904:.
888::
865:.
851::
824:.
818::
803:.
784:.
759:.
708:.
702::
682:.
655:.
644::
638:3
614:.
610::
591:.
565:.
539:.
528::
490:.
470::
460::
433:.
427::
393:.
34:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.