Active Use of Latent Constituency Representation in both Humans and Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18241v1
• Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 14:50:22 GMT
• Title: Active Use of Latent Constituency Representation in both Humans and Large Language Models
• Authors: Wei Liu, Ming Xiang, Nai Ding,
• Abstract summary: We show that a latent tree-structured constituency representation can emerge in both the human brain and large language models. Results demonstrate that a latent tree-structured constituency representation can emerge in both the human brain and LLMs.
• Score: 9.995581737621505
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Understanding how sentences are internally represented in the human brain, as well as in large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, is a major challenge for cognitive science. Classic linguistic theories propose that the brain represents a sentence by parsing it into hierarchically organized constituents. In contrast, LLMs do not explicitly parse linguistic constituents and their latent representations remains poorly explained. Here, we demonstrate that humans and LLMs construct similar latent representations of hierarchical linguistic constituents by analyzing their behaviors during a novel one-shot learning task, in which they infer which words should be deleted from a sentence. Both humans and LLMs tend to delete a constituent, instead of a nonconstituent word string. In contrast, a naive sequence processing model that has access to word properties and ordinal positions does not show this property. Based on the word deletion behaviors, we can reconstruct the latent constituency tree representation of a sentence for both humans and LLMs. These results demonstrate that a latent tree-structured constituency representation can emerge in both the human brain and LLMs.

Related papers

• From Tokens to Words: On the Inner Lexicon of LLMs [7.148628740938674]
  Natural language is composed of words, but modern LLMs process sub-words as input. We present evidence that LLMs engage in an intrinsic detokenization process, where sub-word sequences are combined into coherent word representations. Our findings suggest that LLMs maintain a latent vocabulary beyond the tokenizer's scope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T09:53:35Z)
• Investigating large language models for their competence in extracting grammatically sound sentences from transcribed noisy utterances [1.3597551064547497]
  Humans exhibit remarkable cognitive abilities to separate semantically significant content from speech-specific noise. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can effectively perform analogical speech comprehension tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T14:55:20Z)
• What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scores [1.8175282137722093]
  Internal representations from large language models (LLMs) achieve state-of-the-art brain scores, leading to speculation that they share computational principles with human language processing. Here, we analyze three neural datasets used in an impactful study on LLM-to-brain mappings, with a particular focus on an fMRI dataset where participants read short passages. We find that brain scores of trained LLMs on this dataset can largely be explained by sentence length, position, and pronoun-dereferenced static word embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T17:13:27Z)
• Fantastic Semantics and Where to Find Them: Investigating Which Layers of Generative LLMs Reflect Lexical Semantics [50.982315553104975]
  We investigate the bottom-up evolution of lexical semantics for a popular large language model, namely Llama2. Our experiments show that the representations in lower layers encode lexical semantics, while the higher layers, with weaker semantic induction, are responsible for prediction. This is in contrast to models with discriminative objectives, such as mask language modeling, where the higher layers obtain better lexical semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-03T13:14:47Z)
• Pixel Sentence Representation Learning [67.4775296225521]
  In this work, we conceptualize the learning of sentence-level textual semantics as a visual representation learning process. We employ visually-grounded text perturbation methods like typos and word order shuffling, resonating with human cognitive patterns, and enabling perturbation to be perceived as continuous. Our approach is further bolstered by large-scale unsupervised topical alignment training and natural language inference supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T02:46:45Z)
• 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)
• Human Behavioral Benchmarking: Numeric Magnitude Comparison Effects in Large Language Models [4.412336603162406]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) do not differentially represent numbers, which are pervasive in text. In this work, we investigate how well popular LLMs capture the magnitudes of numbers from a behavioral lens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T07:50:44Z)
• Are Representations Built from the Ground Up? An Empirical Examination of Local Composition in Language Models [91.3755431537592]
  Representing compositional and non-compositional phrases is critical for language understanding. We first formulate a problem of predicting the LM-internal representations of longer phrases given those of their constituents. While we would expect the predictive accuracy to correlate with human judgments of semantic compositionality, we find this is largely not the case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-07T14:21:30Z)
• Low-Dimensional Structure in the Space of Language Representations is Reflected in Brain Responses [62.197912623223964]
  We show a low-dimensional structure where language models and translation models smoothly interpolate between word embeddings, syntactic and semantic tasks, and future word embeddings. We find that this representation embedding can predict how well each individual feature space maps to human brain responses to natural language stimuli recorded using fMRI. This suggests that the embedding captures some part of the brain's natural language representation structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-09T22:59:12Z)
• Decomposing lexical and compositional syntax and semantics with deep language models [82.81964713263483]
  The activations of language transformers like GPT2 have been shown to linearly map onto brain activity during speech comprehension. Here, we propose a taxonomy to factorize the high-dimensional activations of language models into four classes: lexical, compositional, syntactic, and semantic representations. The results highlight two findings. First, compositional representations recruit a more widespread cortical network than lexical ones, and encompass the bilateral temporal, parietal and prefrontal cortices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T10:24:05Z)

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.