Longer Fixations, More Computation: Gaze-Guided Recurrent Neural Networks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00159v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:32:11 GMT
• Title: Longer Fixations, More Computation: Gaze-Guided Recurrent Neural Networks
• Authors: Xinting Huang, Jiajing Wan, Ioannis Kritikos, Nora Hollenstein
• Abstract summary: Humans read texts at a varying pace, while machine learning models treat each token in the same way. In this paper, we convert this intuition into a set of novel models with fixation-guided parallel RNNs or layers. We find that, interestingly, the fixation duration predicted by neural networks bears some resemblance to humans' fixation.
• Score: 12.57650361978445
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Humans read texts at a varying pace, while machine learning models treat each token in the same way in terms of a computational process. Therefore, we ask, does it help to make models act more like humans? In this paper, we convert this intuition into a set of novel models with fixation-guided parallel RNNs or layers and conduct various experiments on language modeling and sentiment analysis tasks to test their effectiveness, thus providing empirical validation for this intuition. Our proposed models achieve good performance on the language modeling task, considerably surpassing the baseline model. In addition, we find that, interestingly, the fixation duration predicted by neural networks bears some resemblance to humans' fixation. Without any explicit guidance, the model makes similar choices to humans. We also investigate the reasons for the differences between them, which explain why "model fixations" are often more suitable than human fixations, when used to guide language models.

Related papers

• Reverse-Engineering the Reader [43.26660964074272]
  We introduce a novel alignment technique in which we fine-tune a language model to implicitly optimize the parameters of a linear regressor. Using words as a test case, we evaluate our technique across multiple model sizes and datasets. We find an inverse relationship between psychometric power and a model's performance on downstream NLP tasks as well as its perplexity on held-out test data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T23:05:01Z)
• DevBench: A multimodal developmental benchmark for language learning [0.34129029452670606]
  We introduce DevBench, a benchmark for evaluating vision-language models on tasks and behavioral data. We show that DevBench provides a benchmark for comparing models to human language development. These comparisons highlight ways in which model and human language learning processes diverge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T17:49:41Z)
• On Modifying a Neural Network's Perception [3.42658286826597]
  We propose a method which allows one to modify what an artificial neural network is perceiving regarding specific human-defined concepts. We test the proposed method on different models, assessing whether the performed manipulations are well interpreted by the models, and analyzing how they react to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-05T12:09:37Z)
• What do Large Language Models Learn beyond Language? [10.9650651784511]
  We find that pretrained models significantly outperform comparable non-pretrained neural models. Experiments surprisingly reveal that the positive effects of pre-training persist even when pretraining on multi-lingual text or computer code. Our findings suggest a hitherto unexplored deep connection between pre-training and inductive learning abilities of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T23:43:13Z)
• Dependency-based Mixture Language Models [53.152011258252315]
  We introduce the Dependency-based Mixture Language Models. In detail, we first train neural language models with a novel dependency modeling objective. We then formulate the next-token probability by mixing the previous dependency modeling probability distributions with self-attention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-19T06:28:30Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)
• 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)
• To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior? [91.67905128825402]
  We investigated the extent to which human-generated explanations of models' inference decisions align with how models actually make these decisions. We defined two alignment metrics that quantify how well natural language human explanations align with model sensitivity to input words. We find that a model's alignment with human explanations is not predicted by the model's accuracy on NLI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-24T17:40:06Z)
• Interpreting convolutional networks trained on textual data [0.0]
  We train a convolutional model on textual data and analyze the global logic of the model by studying its filter values. We find the most important words in our corpus to our models logic and remove the rest. New models trained on just the 5% most important words can achieve the same performance as the original model while reducing training time by more than half.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T20:12:05Z)
• Multi-timescale Representation Learning in LSTM Language Models [69.98840820213937]
  Language models must capture statistical dependencies between words at timescales ranging from very short to very long. We derived a theory for how the memory gating mechanism in long short-term memory language models can capture power law decay. Experiments showed that LSTM language models trained on natural English text learn to approximate this theoretical distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-27T02:13:38Z)
• Mechanisms for Handling Nested Dependencies in Neural-Network Language Models and Humans [75.15855405318855]
  We studied whether a modern artificial neural network trained with "deep learning" methods mimics a central aspect of human sentence processing. Although the network was solely trained to predict the next word in a large corpus, analysis showed the emergence of specialized units that successfully handled local and long-distance syntactic agreement. We tested the model's predictions in a behavioral experiment where humans detected violations in number agreement in sentences with systematic variations in the singular/plural status of multiple nouns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T12:00:05Z)

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.