Anything Goes? A Crosslinguistic Study of (Im)possible Language Learning in LMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18795v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 04:01:36 GMT
• Title: Anything Goes? A Crosslinguistic Study of (Im)possible Language Learning in LMs
• Authors: Xiulin Yang, Tatsuya Aoyama, Yuekun Yao, Ethan Wilcox,
• Abstract summary: We train LMs to model impossible and typologically unattested languages.<n>We find that GPT-2 small can primarily distinguish attested languages from their impossible counterparts.<n>We find that the model's perplexity scores do not distinguish attested vs. unattested word orders, as long as the unattested variants maintain constituency structure.
• Score: 5.4335487858206735
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Do LLMs offer insights into human language learning? A common argument against this idea is that because their architecture and training paradigm are so vastly different from humans, LLMs can learn arbitrary inputs as easily as natural languages. In this paper, we test this claim by training LMs to model impossible and typologically unattested languages. Unlike previous work, which has focused exclusively on English, we conduct experiments on 12 natural languages from 4 language families. Our results show that while GPT-2 small can primarily distinguish attested languages from their impossible counterparts, it does not achieve perfect separation between all the attested languages and all the impossible ones. We further test whether GPT-2 small distinguishes typologically attested from unattested languages with different NP orders by manipulating word order based on Greenberg's Universal 20. We find that the model's perplexity scores do not distinguish attested vs. unattested word orders, as long as the unattested variants maintain constituency structure. These findings suggest that language models exhibit some human-like inductive biases, though these biases are weaker than those found in human learners.

Related papers

• Can Language Models Learn Typologically Implausible Languages? [62.823015163987996]
  Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans.<n>We discuss how language models (LMs) allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals.<n>We test LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T20:40:01Z)
• 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.<n>We parameterize large families of language tasks recognized by deterministic finite automata (DFAs)<n>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)
• Kallini et al. (2024) do not compare impossible languages with constituency-based ones [0.0]
  A central goal of linguistic theory is to find a characterization of the notion "possible human language" Recent large language models (LLMs) in NLP applications arguably raises the possibility that LLMs might be computational devices that meet this goal. I explain the confound and suggest some ways forward towards constructing a comparison that appropriately tests the underlying issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:16:30Z)
• 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)
• The Role of Language Imbalance in Cross-lingual Generalisation: Insights from Cloned Language Experiments [57.273662221547056]
  In this study, we investigate an unintuitive novel driver of cross-lingual generalisation: language imbalance. We observe that the existence of a predominant language during training boosts the performance of less frequent languages. As we extend our analysis to real languages, we find that infrequent languages still benefit from frequent ones, yet whether language imbalance causes cross-lingual generalisation there is not conclusive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T17:58:05Z)
• Mission: Impossible Language Models [29.249131112359503]
  We develop a set of synthetic impossible languages of differing complexity. At one end are languages that are inherently impossible, such as random and irreversible shuffles of English words. At the other end are languages that may not be intuitively impossible but are often considered so in linguistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T07:24:26Z)
• Discovering Representation Sprachbund For Multilingual Pre-Training [139.05668687865688]
  We generate language representation from multilingual pre-trained models and conduct linguistic analysis. We cluster all the target languages into multiple groups and name each group as a representation sprachbund. Experiments are conducted on cross-lingual benchmarks and significant improvements are achieved compared to strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T09:32:06Z)
• Inducing Language-Agnostic Multilingual Representations [61.97381112847459]
  Cross-lingual representations have the potential to make NLP techniques available to the vast majority of languages in the world. We examine three approaches for this: (i) re-aligning the vector spaces of target languages to a pivot source language; (ii) removing language-specific means and variances, which yields better discriminativeness of embeddings as a by-product; and (iii) increasing input similarity across languages by removing morphological contractions and sentence reordering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-20T17:58:56Z)
• Knowledge Distillation for Multilingual Unsupervised Neural Machine Translation [61.88012735215636]
  Unsupervised neural machine translation (UNMT) has recently achieved remarkable results for several language pairs. UNMT can only translate between a single language pair and cannot produce translation results for multiple language pairs at the same time. In this paper, we empirically introduce a simple method to translate between thirteen languages using a single encoder and a single decoder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T17:26:16Z)

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.