Structural Priming Demonstrates Abstract Grammatical Representations in Multilingual Language Models

Abstract grammatical knowledge - of parts of speech and grammatical patterns - is key to the capacity for linguistic generalization in humans. But how abstract is grammatical knowledge in large language models? In the human literature, compelling evidence for grammatical abstraction comes from structural priming. A sentence that shares the same grammatical structure as a preceding sentence is processed and produced more readily. Because confounds exist when using stimuli in a single language, evidence of abstraction is even more compelling from crosslingual structural priming, where use of a syntactic structure in one language primes an analogous structure in another language. We measure crosslingual structural priming in large language models, comparing model behavior to human experimental results from eight crosslingual experiments covering six languages, and four monolingual structural priming experiments in three non-English languages. We find evidence for abstract monolingual and crosslingual grammatical representations in the models that function similarly to those found in humans. These results demonstrate that grammatical representations in multilingual language models are not only similar across languages, but they can causally influence text produced in different languages.

Crosslingual Structural Priming and the Pre-Training Dynamics of Bilingual Language Models

Do multilingual language models share abstract grammatical representations across languages, and if so, when do these develop? Following Sinclair et al. (2022), we use structural priming to test for abstract grammatical representations with causal effects on model outputs. We extend the approach to a Dutch-English bilingual setting, and we evaluate a Dutch-English language model during pre-training. We find that crosslingual structural priming effects emerge early after exposure to the second language, with less than 1M tokens of data in that language. We discuss implications for data contamination, low-resource transfer, and how abstract grammatical representations emerge in multilingual models.

Emergent inabilities? Inverse scaling over the course of pretraining

Does inverse scaling only occur as a function of model parameter size, or can it also occur over the course of training? We carry out an exploratory study investigating whether, over the course of training on the language modeling task, the performance of language models at specific tasks can decrease while general performance remains high. We find that for two tasks from the Inverse Scaling Challenge - quote-repetition and redefine-math - this is indeed the case. Specifically, we find that for Pythia (Biderman et al., 2023) models with a higher number of parameters, performance decreases over the course of training at these two tasks, despite these models showing standard (positive) scaling overall. This highlights the importance of testing model performance at all relevant benchmarks any time they are trained on additional data, even if their overall performance improves.

Can Peanuts Fall in Love with Distributional Semantics?

The context in which a sentence appears can drastically alter our expectations about upcoming words - for example, following a short story involving an anthropomorphic peanut, experimental participants are more likely to expect the sentence 'the peanut was in love' than 'the peanut was salted', as indexed by N400 amplitude (Nieuwland & van Berkum, 2006). This rapid and dynamic updating of comprehenders' expectations about the kind of events that a peanut may take part in based on context has been explained using the construct of Situation Models - updated mental representations of key elements of an event under discussion, in this case, the peanut protagonist. However, recent work showing that N400 amplitude can be predicted based on distributional information alone raises the question whether situation models are in fact necessary for the kinds of contextual effects observed in previous work. To investigate this question, we attempt to model the results of Nieuwland and van Berkum (2006) using six computational language models and three sets of word vectors, none of which have explicit situation models or semantic grounding. We find that the effect found by Nieuwland and van Berkum (2006) can be fully modeled by two language models and two sets of word vectors, with others showing a reduced effect. Thus, at least some processing effects normally explained through situation models may not in fact require explicit situation models.

'Rarely' a problem? Language models exhibit inverse scaling in their predictions following 'few'-type quantifiers

Language Models appear to perform poorly on quantification. We ask how badly. 'Few'-type quantifiers, as in 'few children like vegetables' might pose a particular challenge for Language Models, since the sentence components without the quantifier are likely to co-occur, and because 'few'-type quantifiers are rare. We present 960 sentences stimuli from two human neurolinguistic experiments to 22 autoregressive transformer models of differing sizes. Not only do the models perform poorly on 'few'-type quantifiers, but overall the larger the model, the worse its performance. We interpret this inverse scaling as suggesting that larger models increasingly reflect online rather than offline human processing, and argue that decreasing performance of larger models may challenge uses of Language Models as the basis for Natural Language Systems.

Collateral facilitation in humans and language models

Are the predictions of humans and language models affected by similar things? Research suggests that while comprehending language, humans make predictions about upcoming words, with more predictable words being processed more easily. However, evidence also shows that humans display a similar processing advantage for highly anomalous words when these words are semantically related to the preceding context or to the most probable continuation. Using stimuli from 3 psycholinguistic experiments, we find that this is also almost always also the case for 8 contemporary transformer language models (BERT, ALBERT, RoBERTa, XLM-R, GPT-2, GPT-Neo, GPT-J, and XGLM). We then discuss the implications of this phenomenon for our understanding of both human language comprehension and the predictions made by language models.

Do language models make human-like predictions about the coreferents of Italian anaphoric zero pronouns?

Some languages allow arguments to be omitted in certain contexts. Yet human language comprehenders reliably infer the intended referents of these zero pronouns, in part because they construct expectations about which referents are more likely. We ask whether Neural Language Models also extract the same expectations. We test whether 12 contemporary language models display expectations that reflect human behavior when exposed to sentences with zero pronouns from five behavioral experiments conducted in Italian by Carminati (2005). We find that three models - XGLM 2.9B, 4.5B, and 7.5B - capture the human behavior from all the experiments, with others successfully modeling some of the results. This result suggests that human expectations about coreference can be derived from exposure to language, and also indicates features of language models that allow them to better reflect human behavior.

So Cloze yet so Far: N400 Amplitude is Better Predicted by Distributional Information than Human Predictability Judgements

More predictable words are easier to process - they are read faster and elicit smaller neural signals associated with processing difficulty, most notably, the N400 component of the event-related brain potential. Thus, it has been argued that prediction of upcoming words is a key component of language comprehension, and that studying the amplitude of the N400 is a valuable way to investigate the predictions that we make. In this study, we investigate whether the linguistic predictions of computational language models or humans better reflect the way in which natural language stimuli modulate the amplitude of the N400. One important difference in the linguistic predictions of humans versus computational language models is that while language models base their predictions exclusively on the preceding linguistic context, humans may rely on other factors. We find that the predictions of three top-of-the-line contemporary language models - GPT-3, RoBERTa, and ALBERT - match the N400 more closely than human predictions. This suggests that the predictive processes underlying the N400 may be more sensitive to the surface-level statistics of language than previously thought.

Different kinds of cognitive plausibility: why are transformers better than RNNs at predicting N400 amplitude?

Despite being designed for performance rather than cognitive plausibility, transformer language models have been found to be better at predicting metrics used to assess human language comprehension than language models with other architectures, such as recurrent neural networks. Based on how well they predict the N400, a neural signal associated with processing difficulty, we propose and provide evidence for one possible explanation - their predictions are affected by the preceding context in a way analogous to the effect of semantic facilitation in humans.

How well does surprisal explain N400 amplitude under different experimental conditions?

We investigate the extent to which word surprisal can be used to predict a neural measure of human language processing difficulty - the N400. To do this, we use recurrent neural networks to calculate the surprisal of stimuli from previously published neurolinguistic studies of the N400. We find that surprisal can predict N400 amplitude in a wide range of cases, and the cases where it cannot do so provide valuable insight into the neurocognitive processes underlying the response.