Left-Branching Transformers Excel at Right-Branching Languages: Data Shapes Word Order Preferences in Language Models

We systematically compare word order preferences in decoder-only language models across 192 artificial languages and typologically diverse natural languages. On artificial languages, models exhibit a left-branching preference that aligns with neither natural language universals nor human word order learning biases. On natural languages, monolingual models show no clear base word order bias at small scales, but as data grows, a preference for right-branching subject-verb-object (SVO) languages emerges while SOV falls behind despite being the most frequent order cross-linguistically. This SVO advantage extends to multilingual models and correlates with language resource level and data quality rather than word order. Thus, the same architecture exhibits opposite preferences on artificial and natural languages, establishing that word order biases observed in practice are data-driven. Since highly-resourced languages are overwhelmingly SVO, these biases risk gradually reducing word order diversity, particularly in languages that productively use multiple word orders, with the widespread adoption of LLMs.

Relation Extraction or Pattern Matching? Unravelling the Generalisation Limits of Language Models for Biographical RE

Analysing the generalisation capabilities of relation extraction (RE) models is crucial for assessing whether they learn robust relational patterns or rely on spurious correlations. Our cross-dataset experiments find that RE models struggle with unseen data, even within similar domains. Notably, higher intra-dataset performance does not indicate better transferability, instead often signaling overfitting to dataset-specific artefacts. Our results also show that data quality, rather than lexical similarity, is key to robust transfer, and the choice of optimal adaptation strategy depends on the quality of data available: while fine-tuning yields the best cross-dataset performance with high-quality data, few-shot in-context learning (ICL) is more effective with noisier data. However, even in these cases, zero-shot baselines occasionally outperform all cross-dataset results. Structural issues in RE benchmarks, such as single-relation per sample constraints and non-standardised negative class definitions, further hinder model transferability.

Beyond the Numbers: Transparency in Relation Extraction Benchmark Creation and Leaderboards

This paper investigates the transparency in the creation of benchmarks and the use of leaderboards for measuring progress in NLP, with a focus on the relation extraction (RE) task. Existing RE benchmarks often suffer from insufficient documentation, lacking crucial details such as data sources, inter-annotator agreement, the algorithms used for the selection of instances for datasets, and information on potential biases like dataset imbalance. Progress in RE is frequently measured by leaderboards that rank systems based on evaluation methods, typically limited to aggregate metrics like F1-score. However, the absence of detailed performance analysis beyond these metrics can obscure the true generalisation capabilities of models. Our analysis reveals that widely used RE benchmarks, such as TACRED and NYT, tend to be highly imbalanced and contain noisy labels. Moreover, the lack of class-based performance metrics fails to accurately reflect model performance across datasets with a large number of relation types. These limitations should be carefully considered when reporting progress in RE. While our discussion centers on the transparency of RE benchmarks and leaderboards, the observations we discuss are broadly applicable to other NLP tasks as well. Rather than undermining the significance and value of existing RE benchmarks and the development of new models, this paper advocates for improved documentation and more rigorous evaluation to advance the field.