arXiv subjects

Alex Warstadt

Publications and source records attributed to Alex Warstadt.

45 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2021

CLiMP: A Benchmark for Chinese Language Model Evaluation

Linguistically informed analyses of language models (LMs) contribute to the understanding and improvement of these models. Here, we introduce the corpus of Chinese linguistic minimal pairs (CLiMP), which can be used to investigate what knowledge Chinese LMs acquire. CLiMP consists of sets of 1,000 minimal pairs (MPs) for 16 syntactic contrasts in Mandarin, covering 9 major Mandarin linguistic phenomena. The MPs are semi-automatically generated, and human agreement with the labels in CLiMP is 95.8%. We evaluated 11 different LMs on CLiMP, covering n-grams, LSTMs, and Chinese BERT. We find that classifier-noun agreement and verb complement selection are the phenomena that models generally perform best at. However, models struggle the most with the ba construction, binding, and filler-gap dependencies. Overall, Chinese BERT achieves an 81.8% average accuracy, while the performances of LSTMs and 5-grams are only moderately above chance level.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2020

When Do You Need Billions of Words of Pretraining Data?

NLP is currently dominated by general-purpose pretrained language models like RoBERTa, which achieve strong performance on NLU tasks through pretraining on billions of words. But what exact knowledge or skills do Transformer LMs learn from large-scale pretraining that they cannot learn from less data? We adopt four probing methods---classifier probing, information-theoretic probing, unsupervised relative acceptability judgment, and fine-tuning on NLU tasks---and draw learning curves that track the growth of these different measures of linguistic ability with respect to pretraining data volume using the MiniBERTas, a group of RoBERTa models pretrained on 1M, 10M, 100M and 1B words. We find that LMs require only about 10M or 100M words to learn representations that reliably encode most syntactic and semantic features we test. A much larger quantity of data is needed in order to acquire enough commonsense knowledge and other skills required to master typical downstream NLU tasks. The results suggest that, while the ability to encode linguistic features is almost certainly necessary for language understanding, it is likely that other forms of knowledge are the major drivers of recent improvements in language understanding among large pretrained models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2020

Learning Which Features Matter: RoBERTa Acquires a Preference for Linguistic Generalizations (Eventually)

One reason pretraining on self-supervised linguistic tasks is effective is that it teaches models features that are helpful for language understanding. However, we want pretrained models to learn not only to represent linguistic features, but also to use those features preferentially during fine-turning. With this goal in mind, we introduce a new English-language diagnostic set called MSGS (the Mixed Signals Generalization Set), which consists of 20 ambiguous binary classification tasks that we use to test whether a pretrained model prefers linguistic or surface generalizations during fine-tuning. We pretrain RoBERTa models from scratch on quantities of data ranging from 1M to 1B words and compare their performance on MSGS to the publicly available RoBERTa-base. We find that models can learn to represent linguistic features with little pretraining data, but require far more data to learn to prefer linguistic generalizations over surface ones. Eventually, with about 30B words of pretraining data, RoBERTa-base does demonstrate a linguistic bias with some regularity. We conclude that while self-supervised pretraining is an effective way to learn helpful inductive biases, there is likely room to improve the rate at which models learn which features matter.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2020

Can neural networks acquire a structural bias from raw linguistic data?

We evaluate whether BERT, a widely used neural network for sentence processing, acquires an inductive bias towards forming structural generalizations through pretraining on raw data. We conduct four experiments testing its preference for structural vs. linear generalizations in different structure-dependent phenomena. We find that BERT makes a structural generalization in 3 out of 4 empirical domains---subject-auxiliary inversion, reflexive binding, and verb tense detection in embedded clauses---but makes a linear generalization when tested on NPI licensing. We argue that these results are the strongest evidence so far from artificial learners supporting the proposition that a structural bias can be acquired from raw data. If this conclusion is correct, it is tentative evidence that some linguistic universals can be acquired by learners without innate biases. However, the precise implications for human language acquisition are unclear, as humans learn language from significantly less data than BERT.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2020

Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition

Natural language inference (NLI) is an increasingly important task for natural language understanding, which requires one to infer whether a sentence entails another. However, the ability of NLI models to make pragmatic inferences remains understudied. We create an IMPlicature and PRESupposition diagnostic dataset (IMPPRES), consisting of >25k semiautomatically generated sentence pairs illustrating well-studied pragmatic inference types. We use IMPPRES to evaluate whether BERT, InferSent, and BOW NLI models trained on MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018) learn to make pragmatic inferences. Although MultiNLI appears to contain very few pairs illustrating these inference types, we find that BERT learns to draw pragmatic inferences. It reliably treats scalar implicatures triggered by "some" as entailments. For some presupposition triggers like "only", BERT reliably recognizes the presupposition as an entailment, even when the trigger is embedded under an entailment canceling operator like negation. BOW and InferSent show weaker evidence of pragmatic reasoning. We conclude that NLI training encourages models to learn some, but not all, pragmatic inferences.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2020

Linguistic Analysis of Pretrained Sentence Encoders with Acceptability Judgments

Recent work on evaluating grammatical knowledge in pretrained sentence encoders gives a fine-grained view of a small number of phenomena. We introduce a new analysis dataset that also has broad coverage of linguistic phenomena. We annotate the development set of the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA; Warstadt et al., 2018) for the presence of 13 classes of syntactic phenomena including various forms of argument alternations, movement, and modification. We use this analysis set to investigate the grammatical knowledge of three pretrained encoders: BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), GPT (Radford et al., 2018), and the BiLSTM baseline from Warstadt et al. We find that these models have a strong command of complex or non-canonical argument structures like ditransitives (Sue gave Dan a book) and passives (The book was read). Sentences with long distance dependencies like questions (What do you think I ate?) challenge all models, but for these, BERT and GPT have a distinct advantage over the baseline. We conclude that recent sentence encoders, despite showing near-human performance on acceptability classification overall, still fail to make fine-grained grammaticality distinctions for many complex syntactic structures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2019

Neural Network Acceptability Judgments

This paper investigates the ability of artificial neural networks to judge the grammatical acceptability of a sentence, with the goal of testing their linguistic competence. We introduce the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA), a set of 10,657 English sentences labeled as grammatical or ungrammatical from published linguistics literature. As baselines, we train several recurrent neural network models on acceptability classification, and find that our models outperform unsupervised models by Lau et al (2016) on CoLA. Error-analysis on specific grammatical phenomena reveals that both Lau et al.'s models and ours learn systematic generalizations like subject-verb-object order. However, all models we test perform far below human level on a wide range of grammatical constructions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2019

Investigating BERT's Knowledge of Language: Five Analysis Methods with NPIs

Though state-of-the-art sentence representation models can perform tasks requiring significant knowledge of grammar, it is an open question how best to evaluate their grammatical knowledge. We explore five experimental methods inspired by prior work evaluating pretrained sentence representation models. We use a single linguistic phenomenon, negative polarity item (NPI) licensing in English, as a case study for our experiments. NPIs like "any" are grammatical only if they appear in a licensing environment like negation ("Sue doesn't have any cats" vs. "Sue has any cats"). This phenomenon is challenging because of the variety of NPI licensing environments that exist. We introduce an artificially generated dataset that manipulates key features of NPI licensing for the experiments. We find that BERT has significant knowledge of these features, but its success varies widely across different experimental methods. We conclude that a variety of methods is necessary to reveal all relevant aspects of a model's grammatical knowledge in a given domain.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2018

Verb Argument Structure Alternations in Word and Sentence Embeddings

Verbs occur in different syntactic environments, or frames. We investigate whether artificial neural networks encode grammatical distinctions necessary for inferring the idiosyncratic frame-selectional properties of verbs. We introduce five datasets, collectively called FAVA, containing in aggregate nearly 10k sentences labeled for grammatical acceptability, illustrating different verbal argument structure alternations. We then test whether models can distinguish acceptable English verb-frame combinations from unacceptable ones using a sentence embedding alone. For converging evidence, we further construct LaVA, a corresponding word-level dataset, and investigate whether the same syntactic features can be extracted from word embeddings. Our models perform reliable classifications for some verbal alternations but not others, suggesting that while these representations do encode fine-grained lexical information, it is incomplete or can be hard to extract. Further, differences between the word- and sentence-level models show that some information present in word embeddings is not passed on to the down-stream sentence embeddings.

cs.CL↗