REVIEW 2 cited by
A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural 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
A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Models
read the original abstract
While state-of-the-art neural network models continue to achieve lower perplexity scores on language modeling benchmarks, it remains unknown whether optimizing for broad-coverage predictive performance leads to human-like syntactic knowledge. Furthermore, existing work has not provided a clear picture about the model properties required to produce proper syntactic generalizations. We present a systematic evaluation of the syntactic knowledge of neural language models, testing 20 combinations of model types and data sizes on a set of 34 English-language syntactic test suites. We find substantial differences in syntactic generalization performance by model architecture, with sequential models underperforming other architectures. Factorially manipulating model architecture and training dataset size (1M--40M words), we find that variability in syntactic generalization performance is substantially greater by architecture than by dataset size for the corpora tested in our experiments. Our results also reveal a dissociation between perplexity and syntactic generalization performance.
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.
-
Talking with Oompa Loompas: A novel framework for evaluating linguistic acquisition of LLM agents
LLM agents (GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.5-flash, Claude-3.5-haiku) cannot learn an enumerated synthetic language through feedback within 100 turns, despite the task's grammar being fully specified in the system prompt.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.