Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Models

Targeted syntactic evaluations have demonstrated the ability of language models to perform subject-verb agreement given difficult contexts. To elucidate the mechanisms by which the models accomplish this behavior, this study applies causal mediation analysis to pre-trained neural language models. We investigate the magnitude of models' preferences for grammatical inflections, as well as whether neurons process subject-verb agreement similarly across sentences with different syntactic structures. We uncover similarities and differences across architectures and model sizes -- notably, that larger models do not necessarily learn stronger preferences. We also observe two distinct mechanisms for producing subject-verb agreement depending on the syntactic structure of the input sentence. Finally, we find that language models rely on similar sets of neurons when given sentences with similar syntactic structure.

Counterfactual Interventions Reveal the Causal Effect of Relative Clause Representations on Agreement Prediction

When language models process syntactically complex sentences, do they use abstract syntactic information present in these sentences in a manner that is consistent with the grammar of English, or do they rely solely on a set of heuristics? We propose a method to tackle this question, AlterRep. For any linguistic feature in the sentence, AlterRep allows us to generate counterfactual representations by altering how this feature is encoded, while leaving all other aspects of the original representation intact. Then, by measuring the change in a models' word prediction with these counterfactual representations in different sentences, we can draw causal conclusions about the contexts in which the model uses the linguistic feature (if any). Applying this method to study how BERT uses relative clause (RC) span information, we found that BERT uses information about RC spans during agreement prediction using the linguistically correct strategy. We also found that counterfactual representations generated for a specific RC subtype influenced the number prediction in sentences with other RC subtypes, suggesting that information about RC boundaries was encoded abstractly in BERT's representation.

Evaluating Groundedness in Dialogue Systems: The BEGIN Benchmark

Knowledge-grounded dialogue agents are systems designed to conduct a conversation based on externally provided background information, such as a Wikipedia page. Such dialogue agents, especially those based on neural network language models, often produce responses that sound fluent but are not justified by the background information. Progress towards addressing this problem requires developing automatic evaluation metrics that can quantify the extent to which responses are grounded in background information. To facilitate evaluation of such metrics, we introduce the Benchmark for Evaluation of Grounded INteraction (BEGIN). BEGIN consists of 8113 dialogue turns generated by language-model-based dialogue systems, accompanied by humans annotations specifying the relationship between the system's response and the background information. These annotations are based on an extension of the natural language inference paradigm. We use the benchmark to demonstrate the effectiveness of adversarially generated data for improving an evaluation metric based on existing natural language inference datasets.

Does Putting a Linguist in the Loop Improve NLU Data Collection?

Many crowdsourced NLP datasets contain systematic gaps and biases that are identified only after data collection is complete. Identifying these issues from early data samples during crowdsourcing should make mitigation more efficient, especially when done iteratively. We take natural language inference as a test case and ask whether it is beneficial to put a linguist `in the loop' during data collection to dynamically identify and address gaps in the data by introducing novel constraints on the task. We directly compare three data collection protocols: (i) a baseline protocol, (ii) a linguist-in-the-loop intervention with iteratively-updated constraints on the task, and (iii) an extension of linguist-in-the-loop that provides direct interaction between linguists and crowdworkers via a chatroom. The datasets collected with linguist involvement are more reliably challenging than baseline, without loss of quality. But we see no evidence that using this data in training leads to better out-of-domain model performance, and the addition of a chat platform has no measurable effect on the resulting dataset. We suggest integrating expert analysis \textit{during} data collection so that the expert can dynamically address gaps and biases in the dataset.

COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretation

Natural language is characterized by compositionality: the meaning of a complex expression is constructed from the meanings of its constituent parts. To facilitate the evaluation of the compositional abilities of language processing architectures, we introduce COGS, a semantic parsing dataset based on a fragment of English. The evaluation portion of COGS contains multiple systematic gaps that can only be addressed by compositional generalization; these include new combinations of familiar syntactic structures, or new combinations of familiar words and familiar structures. In experiments with Transformers and LSTMs, we found that in-distribution accuracy on the COGS test set was near-perfect (96--99%), but generalization accuracy was substantially lower (16--35%) and showed high sensitivity to random seed ($\pm$6--8%). These findings indicate that contemporary standard NLP models are limited in their compositional generalization capacity, and position COGS as a good way to measure progress.

Universal linguistic inductive biases via meta-learning

How do learners acquire languages from the limited data available to them? This process must involve some inductive biases - factors that affect how a learner generalizes - but it is unclear which inductive biases can explain observed patterns in language acquisition. To facilitate computational modeling aimed at addressing this question, we introduce a framework for giving particular linguistic inductive biases to a neural network model; such a model can then be used to empirically explore the effects of those inductive biases. This framework disentangles universal inductive biases, which are encoded in the initial values of a neural network's parameters, from non-universal factors, which the neural network must learn from data in a given language. The initial state that encodes the inductive biases is found with meta-learning, a technique through which a model discovers how to acquire new languages more easily via exposure to many possible languages. By controlling the properties of the languages that are used during meta-learning, we can control the inductive biases that meta-learning imparts. We demonstrate this framework with a case study based on syllable structure. First, we specify the inductive biases that we intend to give our model, and then we translate those inductive biases into a space of languages from which a model can meta-learn. Finally, using existing analysis techniques, we verify that our approach has imparted the linguistic inductive biases that it was intended to impart.

Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Evaluation of Word Prediction Models

A range of studies have concluded that neural word prediction models can distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical sentences with high accuracy. However, these studies are based primarily on monolingual evidence from English. To investigate how these models' ability to learn syntax varies by language, we introduce CLAMS (Cross-Linguistic Assessment of Models on Syntax), a syntactic evaluation suite for monolingual and multilingual models. CLAMS includes subject-verb agreement challenge sets for English, French, German, Hebrew and Russian, generated from grammars we develop. We use CLAMS to evaluate LSTM language models as well as monolingual and multilingual BERT. Across languages, monolingual LSTMs achieved high accuracy on dependencies without attractors, and generally poor accuracy on agreement across object relative clauses. On other constructions, agreement accuracy was generally higher in languages with richer morphology. Multilingual models generally underperformed monolingual models. Multilingual BERT showed high syntactic accuracy on English, but noticeable deficiencies in other languages.

How Can We Accelerate Progress Towards Human-like Linguistic Generalization?

This position paper describes and critiques the Pretraining-Agnostic Identically Distributed (PAID) evaluation paradigm, which has become a central tool for measuring progress in natural language understanding. This paradigm consists of three stages: (1) pre-training of a word prediction model on a corpus of arbitrary size; (2) fine-tuning (transfer learning) on a training set representing a classification task; (3) evaluation on a test set drawn from the same distribution as that training set. This paradigm favors simple, low-bias architectures, which, first, can be scaled to process vast amounts of data, and second, can capture the fine-grained statistical properties of a particular data set, regardless of whether those properties are likely to generalize to examples of the task outside the data set. This contrasts with humans, who learn language from several orders of magnitude less data than the systems favored by this evaluation paradigm, and generalize to new tasks in a consistent way. We advocate for supplementing or replacing PAID with paradigms that reward architectures that generalize as quickly and robustly as humans.