Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Like

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11463v1
• Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 17:01:13 GMT
• Title: Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Like
• Authors: Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Yohei Oseki, Ana Brassard, Kentaro Inui
• Abstract summary: We show discrepancies in context access between modern neural language models (LMs) and humans in incremental sentence processing. Additional context limitation was needed to make LMs better simulate human reading behavior. Our analyses also showed that human-LM gaps in memory access are associated with specific syntactic constructions.
• Score: 32.488137777336036
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Do modern natural language processing (NLP) models exhibit human-like language processing? How can they be made more human-like? These questions are motivated by psycholinguistic studies for understanding human language processing as well as engineering efforts. In this study, we demonstrate the discrepancies in context access between modern neural language models (LMs) and humans in incremental sentence processing. Additional context limitation was needed to make LMs better simulate human reading behavior. Our analyses also showed that human-LM gaps in memory access are associated with specific syntactic constructions; incorporating additional syntactic factors into LMs' context access could enhance their cognitive plausibility.

Related papers

• Non-literal Understanding of Number Words by Language Models [33.24263583093367]
  Humans naturally interpret numbers non-literally, combining context, world knowledge, and speaker intent. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) interpret numbers similarly, focusing on hyperbole and pragmatic halo effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T07:03:00Z)
• From Babbling to Fluency: Evaluating the Evolution of Language Models in Terms of Human Language Acquisition [6.617999710257379]
  We propose a three-stage framework to assess the abilities of LMs. We evaluate the generative capacities of LMs using methods from linguistic research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T06:31:49Z)
• Lost in Translation: The Algorithmic Gap Between LMs and the Brain [8.799971499357499]
  Language Models (LMs) have achieved impressive performance on various linguistic tasks, but their relationship to human language processing in the brain remains unclear. This paper examines the gaps and overlaps between LMs and the brain at different levels of analysis. We discuss how insights from neuroscience, such as sparsity, modularity, internal states, and interactive learning, can inform the development of more biologically plausible language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T17:43:16Z)
• Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
  We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing. We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense. Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z)
• Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes [47.7950860342515]
  Modern neural language models (LMs) are powerful tools for modeling human sentence production and comprehension. But to achieve these results, LMs must be trained in distinctly un-human-like ways. Do models trained more naturalistically -- with grounded supervision -- exhibit more humanlike language learning? We investigate this question in the context of word learning, a key sub-task in language acquisition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T03:33:36Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)
• Towards a neural architecture of language: Deep learning versus logistics of access in neural architectures for compositional processing [0.0]
  GPT and brain language processing mechanisms are fundamentally different. They do not possess the logistics of access needed for compositional and productive human language processing. Investigating learning methods could reveal how 'learned cognition' as found in deep learning could develop in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T13:31:26Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)
• What Artificial Neural Networks Can Tell Us About Human Language Acquisition [47.761188531404066]
  Rapid progress in machine learning for natural language processing has the potential to transform debates about how humans learn language. To increase the relevance of learnability results from computational models, we need to train model learners without significant advantages over humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-17T00:12:37Z)
• Towards Abstract Relational Learning in Human Robot Interaction [73.67226556788498]
  Humans have a rich representation of the entities in their environment. If robots need to interact successfully with humans, they need to represent entities, attributes, and generalizations in a similar way. In this work, we address the problem of how to obtain these representations through human-robot interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-20T12:06:46Z)
• Discourse structure interacts with reference but not syntax in neural language models [17.995905582226463]
  We study the ability of language models (LMs) to learn interactions between different linguistic representations. We find that, contrary to humans, implicit causality only influences LM behavior for reference, not syntax. Our results suggest that LM behavior can contradict not only learned representations of discourse but also syntactic agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-10T03:14:00Z)

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.