Zero and Few-shot Semantic Parsing with Ambiguous Inputs
Elias Stengel-Eskin, Kyle Rawlins, Benjamin Van Durme
Abstract
Despite the frequent challenges posed by ambiguity when representing meaning via natural language, it is often ignored or deliberately removed in tasks mapping language to formally-designed representations, which generally assume a one-to-one mapping between linguistic and formal representations. We attempt to address this shortcoming by introducing AmP, a framework, dataset, and challenge for translating ambiguous natural language to formal representations like logic and code. We define templates and generate data for five well-documented linguistic ambiguities. Using AmP, we investigate how several few-shot text-to-code systems handle ambiguity, introducing three new metrics. We find that large pre-trained models perform poorly at capturing the distribution of possible meanings without deliberate instruction. However, models are able to capture the distribution well when ambiguity is attested in their inputs. These results motivate a call for including ambiguity explicitly in datasets and promote considering the distribution of possible outputs when evaluating systems. Data and code: https://github.com/esteng/ambiguous_parsing
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext d01389e4-c564-451d-b0ed-2005d4ac3570Cited by top-tier papers7
- Grammar-Aligned DecodingKanghee Park, Jiayu Wang, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Nadia Polikarpova et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 73 citations
- Grammar-Constrained Decoding for Structured NLP Tasks without FinetuningSaibo Geng, Martin Josifoski, Maxime Peyrard, Robert WestEMNLP 2023 · 33 citations
- Constrained Sampling for Language Models Should Be Easy: An MCMC PerspectiveEmmanuel Anaya Gonzalez, Sairam Vaidya, Kanghee Park, Ruyi Ji et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 15 citations
- Realistic Training Data Generation and Rule Enhanced Decoding in LLM for NameGuessYikuan Xia, Jiazun Chen, Sujian Li, Jun GaoEMNLP 2025
- Language Models Identify Ambiguities and Exploit LoopholesJio Choi, Mohit Bansal, Elias Stengel-EskinEMNLP 2025
Builds on11
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- CodeGen: An Open Large Language Model for Code with Multi-Turn Program SynthesisErik Nijkamp, Bo Pang, Hiroaki Hayashi, Lifu Tu et al.ICLR 2023 · 234 citations
- AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain QuestionsSewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke ZettlemoyerEMNLP 2020 · 162 citations
- COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic InterpretationNajoung Kim, Tal LinzenEMNLP 2020 · 149 citations
Related papers
- PrepBench: How Far Are We from Natural-Language-Driven Data Preparation?Jingzhe Xu, Rui Wang, Jiannan Wang, Guoliang LiVLDB 2026 · 3 citations
- Constrained Language Models Yield Few-Shot Semantic ParsersRichard Shin, Christopher H. Lin, Sam Thomson, Charles Chen et al.EMNLP 2021 · 131 citations
- ParaAMR: A Large-Scale Syntactically Diverse Paraphrase Dataset by AMR Back-TranslationKuan-Hao Huang, Varun Iyer, I-Hung Hsu, Anoop Kumar et al.ACL 2023 · 3 citations
- SQUAB: Evaluating LLM robustness to Ambiguous and Unanswerable Questions in Semantic ParsingSimone Papicchio, Luca Cagliero, Paolo PapottiEMNLP 2025
- Do LLMs Really Struggle at NL-FOL Translation? Revealing Their Strengths via a Novel Benchmarking StrategyAndrea Brunello, Luca Geatti, Michele Mignani, Angelo Montanari et al.AAAI 2026
