Typical Decoding for Natural Language Generation

Despite achieving incredibly low perplexities on myriad natural language corpora, today's language models still often underperform when used to generate text. This dichotomy has puzzled the language generation community for the last few years. In this work, we posit that the abstraction of natural language as a communication channel (\`a la Shannon, 1948) can provide new insights into the behaviors of probabilistic language generators, e.g., why high-probability texts can be dull or repetitive. Humans use language as a means of communicating information, and do so in an efficient yet error-minimizing manner, choosing each word in a string with this (perhaps subconscious) goal in mind. We propose that generation from probabilistic models should mimic this behavior. Rather than always choosing words from the high-probability region of the distribution--which have a low Shannon information content--we sample from the set of words with an information content close to its expected value, i.e., close to the conditional entropy of our model. This decision criterion can be realized through a simple and efficient implementation, which we call typical sampling. Automatic and human evaluations show that, in comparison to nucleus and top-k sampling, typical sampling offers competitive performance in terms of quality while consistently reducing the number of degenerate repetitions.

Adversarial Concept Erasure in Kernel Space

The representation space of neural models for textual data emerges in an unsupervised manner during training. Understanding how human-interpretable concepts, such as gender, are encoded in these representations would improve the ability of users to \emph{control} the content of these representations and analyze the working of the models that rely on them. One prominent approach to the control problem is the identification and removal of linear concept subspaces -- subspaces in the representation space that correspond to a given concept. While those are tractable and interpretable, neural network do not necessarily represent concepts in linear subspaces. We propose a kernalization of the linear concept-removal objective of [Ravfogel et al. 2022], and show that it is effective in guarding against the ability of certain nonlinear adversaries to recover the concept. Interestingly, our findings suggest that the division between linear and nonlinear models is overly simplistic: when considering the concept of binary gender and its neutralization, we do not find a single kernel space that exclusively contains all the concept-related information. It is therefore challenging to protect against \emph{all} nonlinear adversaries at once.

Linear Adversarial Concept Erasure

Modern neural models trained on textual data rely on pre-trained representations that emerge without direct supervision. As these representations are increasingly being used in real-world applications, the inability to \emph{control} their content becomes an increasingly important problem. We formulate the problem of identifying and erasing a linear subspace that corresponds to a given concept, in order to prevent linear predictors from recovering the concept. We model this problem as a constrained, linear minimax game, and show that existing solutions are generally not optimal for this task. We derive a closed-form solution for certain objectives, and propose a convex relaxation, R-LACE, that works well for others. When evaluated in the context of binary gender removal, the method recovers a low-dimensional subspace whose removal mitigates bias by intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation. We show that the method -- despite being linear -- is highly expressive, effectively mitigating bias in deep nonlinear classifiers while maintaining tractability and interpretability.

A Latent-Variable Model for Intrinsic Probing

The success of pre-trained contextualized representations has prompted researchers to analyze them for the presence of linguistic information. Indeed, it is natural to assume that these pre-trained representations do encode some level of linguistic knowledge as they have brought about large empirical improvements on a wide variety of NLP tasks, which suggests they are learning true linguistic generalization. In this work, we focus on intrinsic probing, an analysis technique where the goal is not only to identify whether a representation encodes a linguistic attribute, but also to pinpoint where this attribute is encoded. We propose a novel latent-variable formulation for constructing intrinsic probes and derive a tractable variational approximation to the log-likelihood. Our results show that our model is versatile and yields tighter mutual information estimates than two intrinsic probes previously proposed in the literature. Finally, we find empirical evidence that pre-trained representations develop a cross-lingually entangled notion of morphosyntax.

A Word on Machine Ethics: A Response to Jiang et al. (2021)

Ethics is one of the longest standing intellectual endeavors of humanity. In recent years, the fields of AI and NLP have attempted to wrangle with how learning systems that interact with humans should be constrained to behave ethically. One proposal in this vein is the construction of morality models that can take in arbitrary text and output a moral judgment about the situation described. In this work, we focus on a single case study of the recently proposed Delphi model and offer a critique of the project's proposed method of automating morality judgments. Through an audit of Delphi, we examine broader issues that would be applicable to any similar attempt. We conclude with a discussion of how machine ethics could usefully proceed, by focusing on current and near-future uses of technology, in a way that centers around transparency, democratic values, and allows for straightforward accountability.

Probing as Quantifying the Inductive Bias of Pre-trained Representations

Pre-trained contextual representations have led to dramatic performance improvements on a range of downstream tasks. This has motivated researchers to quantify and understand the linguistic information encoded in them. In general, this is done by probing, which consists of training a supervised model to predict a linguistic property from said representations. Unfortunately, this definition of probing has been subject to extensive criticism, and can lead to paradoxical or counter-intuitive results. In this work, we present a novel framework for probing where the goal is to evaluate the inductive bias of representations for a particular task, and provide a practical avenue to do this using Bayesian inference. We apply our framework to a series of token-, arc-, and sentence-level tasks. Our results suggest that our framework solves problems of previous approaches and that fastText can offer a better inductive bias than BERT in certain situations.

A surprisal--duration trade-off across and within the world's languages

While there exist scores of natural languages, each with its unique features and idiosyncrasies, they all share a unifying theme: enabling human communication. We may thus reasonably predict that human cognition shapes how these languages evolve and are used. Assuming that the capacity to process information is roughly constant across human populations, we expect a surprisal--duration trade-off to arise both across and within languages. We analyse this trade-off using a corpus of 600 languages and, after controlling for several potential confounds, we find strong supporting evidence in both settings. Specifically, we find that, on average, phones are produced faster in languages where they are less surprising, and vice versa. Further, we confirm that more surprising phones are longer, on average, in 319 languages out of the 600. We thus conclude that there is strong evidence of a surprisal--duration trade-off in operation, both across and within the world's languages.

On Homophony and Rényi Entropy

Homophony's widespread presence in natural languages is a controversial topic. Recent theories of language optimality have tried to justify its prevalence, despite its negative effects on cognitive processing time; e.g., Piantadosi et al. (2012) argued homophony enables the reuse of efficient wordforms and is thus beneficial for languages. This hypothesis has recently been challenged by Trott and Bergen (2020), who posit that good wordforms are more often homophonous simply because they are more phonotactically probable. In this paper, we join in on the debate. We first propose a new information-theoretic quantification of a language's homophony: the sample R\'enyi entropy. Then, we use this quantification to revisit Trott and Bergen's claims. While their point is theoretically sound, a specific methodological issue in their experiments raises doubts about their results. After addressing this issue, we find no clear pressure either towards or against homophony -- a much more nuanced result than either Piantadosi et al.'s or Trott and Bergen's findings.

Classifying Dyads for Militarized Conflict Analysis

Understanding the origins of militarized conflict is a complex, yet important undertaking. Existing research seeks to build this understanding by considering bi-lateral relationships between entity pairs (dyadic causes) and multi-lateral relationships among multiple entities (systemic causes). The aim of this work is to compare these two causes in terms of how they correlate with conflict between two entities. We do this by devising a set of textual and graph-based features which represent each of the causes. The features are extracted from Wikipedia and modeled as a large graph. Nodes in this graph represent entities connected by labeled edges representing ally or enemy-relationships. This allows casting the problem as an edge classification task, which we term dyad classification. We propose and evaluate classifiers to determine if a particular pair of entities are allies or enemies. Our results suggest that our systemic features might be slightly better correlates of conflict. Further, we find that Wikipedia articles of allies are semantically more similar than enemies.

Revisiting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesis

The uniform information density (UID) hypothesis posits a preference among language users for utterances structured such that information is distributed uniformly across a signal. While its implications on language production have been well explored, the hypothesis potentially makes predictions about language comprehension and linguistic acceptability as well. Further, it is unclear how uniformity in a linguistic signal -- or lack thereof -- should be measured, and over which linguistic unit, e.g., the sentence or language level, this uniformity should hold. Here we investigate these facets of the UID hypothesis using reading time and acceptability data. While our reading time results are generally consistent with previous work, they are also consistent with a weakly super-linear effect of surprisal, which would be compatible with UID's predictions. For acceptability judgments, we find clearer evidence that non-uniformity in information density is predictive of lower acceptability. We then explore multiple operationalizations of UID, motivated by different interpretations of the original hypothesis, and analyze the scope over which the pressure towards uniformity is exerted. The explanatory power of a subset of the proposed operationalizations suggests that the strongest trend may be a regression towards a mean surprisal across the language, rather than the phrase, sentence, or document -- a finding that supports a typical interpretation of UID, namely that it is the byproduct of language users maximizing the use of a (hypothetical) communication channel.