Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12317v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:40:01 GMT
• Title: Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages?
• Authors: Tianyang Xu, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Yohei Oseki, Ryan Cotterell, Alex Warstadt,
• Abstract summary: Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans. We discuss how language models (LMs) allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals. We test LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages.
• Score: 62.823015163987996
• License:
• Abstract: Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans. However, empirical evidence has been limited to experiments with highly simplified artificial languages, and whether these correlations arise from domain-general or language-specific biases remains a matter of debate. Language models (LMs) provide an opportunity to study artificial language learning at a large scale and with a high degree of naturalism. In this paper, we begin with an in-depth discussion of how LMs allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals. We then assess learnability differences for LMs resulting from typologically plausible and implausible languages closely following the word-order universals identified by linguistic typologists. We conduct a symmetrical cross-lingual study training and testing LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages. Compared to similar work, our datasets are more naturalistic and fall closer to the boundary of plausibility. Our experiments show that these LMs are often slower to learn these subtly implausible languages, while ultimately achieving similar performance on some metrics regardless of typological plausibility. These findings lend credence to the conclusion that LMs do show some typologically-aligned learning preferences, and that the typological patterns may result from, at least to some degree, domain-general learning biases.

Related papers

• Randomly Sampled Language Reasoning Problems Reveal Limits of LLMs [8.146860674148044]
  We attempt to measure models' language understanding capacity while circumventing the risk of dataset recall. We parameterize large families of language tasks recognized by deterministic finite automata (DFAs) We find that, even in the strikingly simple setting of 3-state DFAs, LLMs underperform un parameterized ngram models on both language recognition and synthesis tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-06T07:57:51Z)
• Searching for Structure: Investigating Emergent Communication with Large Language Models [0.10923877073891446]
  We simulate a classical referential game in which Large Language Models learn and use artificial languages. Our results show that initially unstructured holistic languages are indeed shaped to have some structural properties that allow two LLM agents to communicate successfully.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T16:32:19Z)
• Black Big Boxes: Do Language Models Hide a Theory of Adjective Order? [5.395055685742631]
  In English and other languages, multiple adjectives in a complex noun phrase show intricate ordering patterns that have been a target of much linguistic theory. We review existing hypotheses designed to explain Adjective Order Preferences (AOPs) in humans and develop a setup to study AOPs in language models. We find that all models' predictions are much closer to human AOPs than predictions generated by factors identified in theoretical linguistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T10:29:09Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts. We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion. We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• What Languages are Easy to Language-Model? A Perspective from Learning Probabilistic Regular Languages [78.1866280652834]
  Large language models (LM) are distributions over strings. We investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs. We find that the complexity of the RLM rank is strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:34:24Z)
• How Proficient Are Large Language Models in Formal Languages? An In-Depth Insight for Knowledge Base Question Answering [52.86931192259096]
  Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) aims to answer natural language questions based on facts in knowledge bases. Recent works leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for logical form generation to improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T09:27:50Z)
• Evaluating Neural Language Models as Cognitive Models of Language Acquisition [4.779196219827507]
  We argue that some of the most prominent benchmarks for evaluating the syntactic capacities of neural language models may not be sufficiently rigorous. When trained on small-scale data modeling child language acquisition, the LMs can be readily matched by simple baseline models. We conclude with suggestions for better connecting LMs with the empirical study of child language acquisition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T00:16:17Z)
• 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)
• Linguistic Typology Features from Text: Inferring the Sparse Features of World Atlas of Language Structures [73.06435180872293]
  We construct a recurrent neural network predictor based on byte embeddings and convolutional layers. We show that some features from various linguistic types can be predicted reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T21:00:53Z)

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.