A Cognitive Regularizer for Language Modeling

The uniform information density (UID) hypothesis, which posits that speakers behaving optimally tend to distribute information uniformly across a linguistic signal, has gained traction in psycholinguistics as an explanation for certain syntactic, morphological, and prosodic choices. In this work, we explore whether the UID hypothesis can be operationalized as an inductive bias for statistical language modeling. Specifically, we augment the canonical MLE objective for training language models with a regularizer that encodes UID. In experiments on ten languages spanning five language families, we find that using UID regularization consistently improves perplexity in language models, having a larger effect when training data is limited. Moreover, via an analysis of generated sequences, we find that UID-regularized language models have other desirable properties, e.g., they generate text that is more lexically diverse. Our results not only suggest that UID is a reasonable inductive bias for language modeling, but also provide an alternative validation of the UID hypothesis using modern-day NLP tools.

Is Sparse Attention more Interpretable?

Sparse attention has been claimed to increase model interpretability under the assumption that it highlights influential inputs. Yet the attention distribution is typically over representations internal to the model rather than the inputs themselves, suggesting this assumption may not have merit. We build on the recent work exploring the interpretability of attention; we design a set of experiments to help us understand how sparsity affects our ability to use attention as an explainability tool. On three text classification tasks, we verify that only a weak relationship between inputs and co-indexed intermediate representations exists -- under sparse attention and otherwise. Further, we do not find any plausible mappings from sparse attention distributions to a sparse set of influential inputs through other avenues. Rather, we observe in this setting that inducing sparsity may make it less plausible that attention can be used as a tool for understanding model behavior.

SIGTYP 2021 Shared Task: Robust Spoken Language Identification

While language identification is a fundamental speech and language processing task, for many languages and language families it remains a challenging task. For many low-resource and endangered languages this is in part due to resource availability: where larger datasets exist, they may be single-speaker or have different domains than desired application scenarios, demanding a need for domain and speaker-invariant language identification systems. This year's shared task on robust spoken language identification sought to investigate just this scenario: systems were to be trained on largely single-speaker speech from one domain, but evaluated on data in other domains recorded from speakers under different recording circumstances, mimicking realistic low-resource scenarios. We see that domain and speaker mismatch proves very challenging for current methods which can perform above 95% accuracy in-domain, which domain adaptation can address to some degree, but that these conditions merit further investigation to make spoken language identification accessible in many scenarios.

Do Syntactic Probes Probe Syntax? Experiments with Jabberwocky Probing

Analysing whether neural language models encode linguistic information has become popular in NLP. One method of doing so, which is frequently cited to support the claim that models like BERT encode syntax, is called probing; probes are small supervised models trained to extract linguistic information from another model's output. If a probe is able to predict a particular structure, it is argued that the model whose output it is trained on must have implicitly learnt to encode it. However, drawing a generalisation about a model's linguistic knowledge about a specific phenomena based on what a probe is able to learn may be problematic: in this work, we show that semantic cues in training data means that syntactic probes do not properly isolate syntax. We generate a new corpus of semantically nonsensical but syntactically well-formed Jabberwocky sentences, which we use to evaluate two probes trained on normal data. We train the probes on several popular language models (BERT, GPT, and RoBERTa), and find that in all settings they perform worse when evaluated on these data, for one probe by an average of 15.4 UUAS points absolute. Although in most cases they still outperform the baselines, their lead is reduced substantially, e.g. by 53% in the case of BERT for one probe. This begs the question: what empirical scores constitute knowing syntax?

Modeling the Unigram Distribution

The unigram distribution is the non-contextual probability of finding a specific word form in a corpus. While of central importance to the study of language, it is commonly approximated by each word's sample frequency in the corpus. This approach, being highly dependent on sample size, assigns zero probability to any out-of-vocabulary (oov) word form. As a result, it produces negatively biased probabilities for any oov word form, while positively biased probabilities to in-corpus words. In this work, we argue in favor of properly modeling the unigram distribution -- claiming it should be a central task in natural language processing. With this in mind, we present a novel model for estimating it in a language (a neuralization of Goldwater et al.'s (2011) model) and show it produces much better estimates across a diverse set of 7 languages than the na\"ive use of neural character-level language models.

Examining the Inductive Bias of Neural Language Models with Artificial Languages

Since language models are used to model a wide variety of languages, it is natural to ask whether the neural architectures used for the task have inductive biases towards modeling particular types of languages. Investigation of these biases has proved complicated due to the many variables that appear in the experimental setup. Languages vary in many typological dimensions, and it is difficult to single out one or two to investigate without the others acting as confounders. We propose a novel method for investigating the inductive biases of language models using artificial languages. These languages are constructed to allow us to create parallel corpora across languages that differ only in the typological feature being investigated, such as word order. We then use them to train and test language models. This constitutes a fully controlled causal framework, and demonstrates how grammar engineering can serve as a useful tool for analyzing neural models. Using this method, we find that commonly used neural architectures exhibit different inductive biases: LSTMs display little preference with respect to word ordering, while transformers display a clear preference for some orderings over others. Further, we find that neither the inductive bias of the LSTM nor that of the transformer appears to reflect any tendencies that we see in attested natural languages.

Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexity

We propose an alternate approach to quantifying how well language models learn natural language: we ask how well they match the statistical tendencies of natural language. To answer this question, we analyze whether text generated from language models exhibits the statistical tendencies present in the human-generated text on which they were trained. We provide a framework--paired with significance tests--for evaluating the fit of language models to these trends. We find that neural language models appear to learn only a subset of the tendencies considered, but align much more closely with empirical trends than proposed theoretical distributions (when present). Further, the fit to different distributions is highly-dependent on both model architecture and generation strategy. As concrete examples, text generated under the nucleus sampling scheme adheres more closely to the type--token relationship of natural language than text produced using standard ancestral sampling; text from LSTMs reflects the natural language distributions over length, stopwords, and symbols surprisingly well.

On Finding the $K$-best Non-projective Dependency Trees

The connection between the maximum spanning tree in a directed graph and the best dependency tree of a sentence has been exploited by the NLP community. However, for many dependency parsing schemes, an important detail of this approach is that the spanning tree must have exactly one edge emanating from the root. While work has been done to efficiently solve this problem for finding the one-best dependency tree, no research has attempted to extend this solution to finding the $K$-best dependency trees. This is arguably a more important extension as a larger proportion of decoded trees will not be subject to the root constraint of dependency trees. Indeed, we show that the rate of root constraint violations increases by an average of $13$ times when decoding with $K\!=\!50$ as opposed to $K\!=\!1$. In this paper, we provide a simplification of the $K$-best spanning tree algorithm of Camerini et al. (1980). Our simplification allows us to obtain a constant time speed-up over the original algorithm. Furthermore, we present a novel extension of the algorithm for decoding the $K$-best dependency trees of a graph which are subject to a root constraint.