Zipf (1935) posited that wordforms are optimized to minimize utterances' communicative costs. Under the assumption that cost is given by an utterance's length, he supported this claim by showing that words' lengths are inversely correlated with their frequencies. Communicative cost, however, can be operationalized in different ways. Piantadosi et al. (2011) claim that cost should be measured as the distance between an utterance's information rate and channel capacity, which we dub the channel capacity hypothesis (CCH) here. Following this logic, they then proposed that a word's length should be proportional to the expected value of its surprisal (negative log-probability in context). In this work, we show that Piantadosi et al.'s derivation does not minimize CCH's cost, but rather a lower bound, which we term CCH-lower. We propose a novel derivation, suggesting an improved way to minimize CCH's cost. Under this method, we find that a language's word lengths should instead be proportional to the surprisal's expectation plus its variance-to-mean ratio. Experimentally, we compare these three communicative cost functions: Zipf's, CCH-lower , and CCH. Across 13 languages and several experimental settings, we find that length is better predicted by frequency than either of the other hypotheses. In fact, when surprisal's expectation, or expectation plus variance-to-mean ratio, is estimated using better language models, it leads to worse word length predictions. We take these results as evidence that Zipf's longstanding hypothesis holds.
Large language models have become one of the most commonly deployed NLP inventions. In the past half-decade, their integration into core natural language processing tools has dramatically increased the performance of such tools, and they have entered the public discourse surrounding artificial intelligence. Consequently, it is important for both developers and researchers alike to understand the mathematical foundations of large language models, as well as how to implement them. These notes are the accompaniment to the theoretical portion of the ETH Z\"urich course on large language models, covering what constitutes a language model from a formal, theoretical perspective.
A fundamental result in psycholinguistics is that less predictable words take a longer time to process. One theoretical explanation for this finding is Surprisal Theory (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008), which quantifies a word's predictability as its surprisal, i.e. its negative log-probability given a context. While evidence supporting the predictions of Surprisal Theory have been replicated widely, most have focused on a very narrow slice of data: native English speakers reading English texts. Indeed, no comprehensive multilingual analysis exists. We address this gap in the current literature by investigating the relationship between surprisal and reading times in eleven different languages, distributed across five language families. Deriving estimates from language models trained on monolingual and multilingual corpora, we test three predictions associated with surprisal theory: (i) whether surprisal is predictive of reading times; (ii) whether expected surprisal, i.e. contextual entropy, is predictive of reading times; (iii) and whether the linking function between surprisal and reading times is linear. We find that all three predictions are borne out crosslinguistically. By focusing on a more diverse set of languages, we argue that these results offer the most robust link to-date between information theory and incremental language processing across languages.
Sampling is a common strategy for generating text from probabilistic models, yet standard ancestral sampling often results in text that is incoherent or ungrammatical. To alleviate this issue, various modifications to a model's sampling distribution, such as nucleus or top-k sampling, have been introduced and are now ubiquitously used in language generation systems. We propose a unified framework for understanding these techniques, which we term sampling adapters. Sampling adapters often lead to qualitatively better text, which raises the question: From a formal perspective, how are they changing the (sub)word-level distributions of language generation models? And why do these local changes lead to higher-quality text? We argue that the shift they enforce can be viewed as a trade-off between precision and recall: while the model loses its ability to produce certain strings, its precision rate on desirable text increases. While this trade-off is not reflected in standard metrics of distribution quality (such as perplexity), we find that several precision-emphasizing measures indeed indicate that sampling adapters can lead to probability distributions more aligned with the true distribution. Further, these measures correlate with higher sequence-level quality scores, specifically, Mauve.
Subword tokenization is a key part of many NLP pipelines. However, little is known about why some tokenizer and hyperparameter combinations lead to better downstream model performance than others. We propose that good tokenizers lead to \emph{efficient} channel usage, where the channel is the means by which some input is conveyed to the model and efficiency can be quantified in information-theoretic terms as the ratio of the Shannon entropy to the maximum possible entropy of the token distribution. Yet, an optimal encoding according to Shannon entropy assigns extremely long codes to low-frequency tokens and very short codes to high-frequency tokens. Defining efficiency in terms of R\'enyi entropy, on the other hand, penalizes distributions with either very high or very low-frequency tokens. In machine translation, we find that across multiple tokenizers, the R\'enyi entropy with $\alpha = 2.5$ has a very strong correlation with \textsc{Bleu}: $0.78$ in comparison to just $-0.32$ for compressed length.
Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) is a popular algorithm used for tokenizing data in NLP, despite being devised initially as a compression method. BPE appears to be a greedy algorithm at face value, but the underlying optimization problem that BPE seeks to solve has not yet been laid down. We formalize BPE as a combinatorial optimization problem. Via submodular functions, we prove that the iterative greedy version is a $\frac{1}{{\sigma(\boldsymbol{\mu}^\star)}}(1-e^{-{\sigma(\boldsymbol{\mu}^\star)}})$-approximation of an optimal merge sequence, where ${\sigma(\boldsymbol{\mu}^\star)}$ is the total backward curvature with respect to the optimal merge sequence $\boldsymbol{\mu}^\star$. Empirically the lower bound of the approximation is $\approx 0.37$. We provide a faster implementation of BPE which improves the runtime complexity from $\mathcal{O}\left(N M\right)$ to $\mathcal{O}\left(N \log M\right)$, where $N$ is the sequence length and $M$ is the merge count. Finally, we optimize the brute-force algorithm for optimal BPE using memoization.
While natural languages differ widely in both canonical word order and word order flexibility, their word orders still follow shared cross-linguistic statistical patterns, often attributed to functional pressures. In the effort to identify these pressures, prior work has compared real and counterfactual word orders. Yet one functional pressure has been overlooked in such investigations: the uniform information density (UID) hypothesis, which holds that information should be spread evenly throughout an utterance. Here, we ask whether a pressure for UID may have influenced word order patterns cross-linguistically. To this end, we use computational models to test whether real orders lead to greater information uniformity than counterfactual orders. In our empirical study of 10 typologically diverse languages, we find that: (i) among SVO languages, real word orders consistently have greater uniformity than reverse word orders, and (ii) only linguistically implausible counterfactual orders consistently exceed the uniformity of real orders. These findings are compatible with a pressure for information uniformity in the development and usage of natural languages.
Language modeling, a central task in natural language processing, involves estimating a probability distribution over strings. In most cases, the estimated distribution sums to 1 over all finite strings. However, in some pathological cases, probability mass can ``leak'' onto the set of infinite sequences. In order to characterize the notion of leakage more precisely, this paper offers a measure-theoretic treatment of language modeling. We prove that many popular language model families are in fact tight, meaning that they will not leak in this sense. We also generalize characterizations of tightness proposed in previous works.
After just a few hundred training updates, a standard probabilistic model for language generation has likely not yet learnt many semantic or syntactic rules of natural language, which inherently makes it difficult to estimate the right probability distribution over next tokens. Yet around this point, these models have identified a simple, loss-minimising behaviour: to output the unigram distribution of the target training corpus. The use of such a crude heuristic raises the question: Rather than wasting precious compute resources and model capacity for learning this strategy at early training stages, can we initialise our models with this behaviour? Here, we show that we can effectively endow our model with a separate module that reflects unigram frequency statistics as prior knowledge. Standard neural language generation architectures offer a natural opportunity for implementing this idea: by initialising the bias term in a model's final linear layer with the log-unigram distribution. Experiments in neural machine translation demonstrate that this simple technique: (i) improves learning efficiency; (ii) achieves better overall performance; and (iii) appears to disentangle strong frequency effects, encouraging the model to specialise in non-frequency-related aspects of language.
Over the past two decades, numerous studies have demonstrated how less predictable (i.e. higher surprisal) words take more time to read. In general, these previous studies implicitly assumed the reading process to be purely responsive: readers observe a new word and allocate time to read it as required. These results, however, are also compatible with a reading time that is anticipatory: readers could, e.g., allocate time to a future word based on their expectation about it. In this work, we examine the anticipatory nature of reading by looking at how people's predictions about upcoming material influence reading times. Specifically, we test anticipation by looking at the effects of surprisal and contextual entropy on four reading-time datasets: two self-paced and two eye-tracking. In three of four datasets tested, we find that the entropy predicts reading times as well as (or better than) the surprisal. We then hypothesise four cognitive mechanisms through which the contextual entropy could impact RTs -- three of which we design experiments to analyse. Overall, our results support a view of reading that is both anticipatory and responsive.