REVIEW 2 cited by
Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We present a dataset for evaluating the grammaticality of the predictions of a language model. We automatically construct a large number of minimally different pairs of English sentences, each consisting of a grammatical and an ungrammatical sentence. The sentence pairs represent different variations of structure-sensitive phenomena: subject-verb agreement, reflexive anaphora and negative polarity items. We expect a language model to assign a higher probability to the grammatical sentence than the ungrammatical one. In an experiment using this data set, an LSTM language model performed poorly on many of the constructions. Multi-task training with a syntactic objective (CCG supertagging) improved the LSTM's accuracy, but a large gap remained between its performance and the accuracy of human participants recruited online. This suggests that there is considerable room for improvement over LSTMs in capturing syntax in a language model.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Computational models of pragmatic reasoning with flexible generation of meaning and expression alternatives
Combining language-model generation with rule-based selection reproduces several pragmatic phenomena, but the language models only worked reliably as idea generators, not as judges of formal linguistic properties.
-
How Syntax Specialization Emerges in Language Models
Syntactic specialization in language models emerges gradually during training, concentrates in particular layers, and appears to stabilize after roughly 16 million tokens.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.