Does BERT really agree ? Fine-grained Analysis of Lexical Dependence on a Syntactic Task

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.06889v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:33:15 GMT
• Title: Does BERT really agree ? Fine-grained Analysis of Lexical Dependence on a Syntactic Task
• Authors: Karim Lasri, Alessandro Lenci, Thierry Poibeau
• Abstract summary: We study the extent to which BERT is able to perform lexically-independent subject-verb number agreement (NA) on targeted syntactic templates. Our results on nonce sentences suggest that the model generalizes well for simple templates, but fails to perform lexically-independent syntactic generalization when as little as one attractor is present.
• Score: 70.29624135819884
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Although transformer-based Neural Language Models demonstrate impressive performance on a variety of tasks, their generalization abilities are not well understood. They have been shown to perform strongly on subject-verb number agreement in a wide array of settings, suggesting that they learned to track syntactic dependencies during their training even without explicit supervision. In this paper, we examine the extent to which BERT is able to perform lexically-independent subject-verb number agreement (NA) on targeted syntactic templates. To do so, we disrupt the lexical patterns found in naturally occurring stimuli for each targeted structure in a novel fine-grained analysis of BERT's behavior. Our results on nonce sentences suggest that the model generalizes well for simple templates, but fails to perform lexically-independent syntactic generalization when as little as one attractor is present.

Related papers

• "You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator": Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation [60.863629647985526]
  We examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure. We find that models can reliably reproduce the basic format of AMR, and can often capture core event, argument, and modifier structure. Overall, our findings indicate that these models out-of-the-box can capture aspects of semantic structure, but there remain key limitations in their ability to support fully accurate semantic analyses or parses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T21:47:59Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Investigating the Effect of Natural Language Explanations on Out-of-Distribution Generalization in Few-shot NLI [11.44224857047629]
  We formulate a few-shot learning setup and examine the effects of natural language explanations on OOD generalization. We leverage the templates in the HANS dataset and construct templated natural language explanations for each template. We show that generated explanations show competitive BLEU scores against groundtruth explanations, but they fail to improve prediction performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-12T18:00:02Z)
• BigGreen at SemEval-2021 Task 1: Lexical Complexity Prediction with Assembly Models [2.4815579733050153]
  This paper describes a system submitted by team BigGreen to 2021 for predicting the lexical complexity of English words in a given context. We assemble a feature engineering-based model with a deep neural network model founded on BERT. Our handcrafted features comprise a breadth of lexical, semantic, syntactic, and novel phonological measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-19T04:05:50Z)
• Unnatural Language Inference [48.45003475966808]
  We find that state-of-the-art NLI models, such as RoBERTa and BART, are invariant to, and sometimes even perform better on, examples with randomly reordered words. Our findings call into question the idea that our natural language understanding models, and the tasks used for measuring their progress, genuinely require a human-like understanding of syntax.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-30T20:40:48Z)
• Lexically-constrained Text Generation through Commonsense Knowledge Extraction and Injection [62.071938098215085]
  We focus on the Commongen benchmark, wherein the aim is to generate a plausible sentence for a given set of input concepts. We propose strategies for enhancing the semantic correctness of the generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-19T23:23:40Z)
• Infusing Finetuning with Semantic Dependencies [62.37697048781823]
  We show that, unlike syntax, semantics is not brought to the surface by today's pretrained models. We then use convolutional graph encoders to explicitly incorporate semantic parses into task-specific finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T01:27:24Z)
• Syntactic Structure Distillation Pretraining For Bidirectional Encoders [49.483357228441434]
  We introduce a knowledge distillation strategy for injecting syntactic biases into BERT pretraining. We distill the approximate marginal distribution over words in context from the syntactic LM. Our findings demonstrate the benefits of syntactic biases, even in representation learners that exploit large amounts of data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-27T16:44:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.