Efficient and privacy-preserving multimodal interaction is essential as AR, VR, and modern smartphones with powerful cameras become primary interfaces for human-computer communication. Existing powerful large vision-language models (VLMs) enabling multimodal interaction often rely on cloud-based processing, raising significant concerns about (1) visual privacy by transmitting sensitive vision data to servers, and (2) their limited real-time, on-device usability. This paper explores Visual Instruction Rewriting, a novel approach that transforms multimodal instructions into text-only commands, allowing seamless integration of lightweight on-device instruction rewriter VLMs (250M parameters) with existing conversational AI systems, enhancing vision data privacy. To achieve this, we present a dataset of over 39,000 examples across 14 domains and develop a compact VLM, pretrained on image captioning datasets and fine-tuned for instruction rewriting. Experimental results, evaluated through NLG metrics such as BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE, along with semantic parsing analysis, demonstrate that even a quantized version of the model (<500MB storage footprint) can achieve effective instruction rewriting, thus enabling privacy-focused, multimodal AI applications.

Natural Language Generation (NLG) popularity has increased owing to the progress in Large Language Models (LLMs), with zero-shot inference capabilities. However, most neural systems utilize decoder-only causal (unidirectional) transformer models, which are effective for English but may reduce the richness of languages with less strict word order, subject omission, or different relative clause attachment preferences. This is the first work that analytically addresses optimal text generation order for non-causal language models. We present a novel Viterbi algorithm-based methodology for maximum likelihood word order estimation. We analyze the non-causal most-likelihood order probability for NLG in Spanish and, then, the probability of generating the same phrases with Spanish causal NLG. This comparative analysis reveals that causal NLG prefers English-like SVO structures. We also analyze the relationship between optimal generation order and causal left-to-right generation order using Spearman's rank correlation. Our results demonstrate that the ideal order predicted by the maximum likelihood estimator is not closely related to the causal order and may be influenced by the syntactic structure of the target sentence.

Linguistic evaluations of how well LMs generalize to produce or understand novel text often implicitly take for granted that natural languages are generated by symbolic rules. Grammaticality is thought to be determined by whether or not sentences obey such rules. Interpretation is believed to be compositionally generated by syntactic rules operating on meaningful words. Semantic parsing is intended to map sentences into formal logic. Failures of LMs to obey strict rules have been taken to reveal that LMs do not produce or understand language like humans. Here we suggest that LMs' failures to obey symbolic rules may be a feature rather than a bug, because natural languages are not based on rules. New utterances are produced and understood by a combination of flexible interrelated and context-dependent schemata or constructions. We encourage researchers to reimagine appropriate benchmarks and analyses that acknowledge the rich flexible generalizations that comprise natural languages.

Grammatical features across human languages show intriguing correlations often attributed to learning biases in humans. However, empirical evidence has been limited to experiments with highly simplified artificial languages, and whether these correlations arise from domain-general or language-specific biases remains a matter of debate. Language models (LMs) provide an opportunity to study artificial language learning at a large scale and with a high degree of naturalism. In this paper, we begin with an in-depth discussion of how LMs allow us to better determine the role of domain-general learning biases in language universals. We then assess learnability differences for LMs resulting from typologically plausible and implausible languages closely following the word-order universals identified by linguistic typologists. We conduct a symmetrical cross-lingual study training and testing LMs on an array of highly naturalistic but counterfactual versions of the English (head-initial) and Japanese (head-final) languages. Compared to similar work, our datasets are more naturalistic and fall closer to the boundary of plausibility. Our experiments show that these LMs are often slower to learn these subtly implausible languages, while ultimately achieving similar performance on some metrics regardless of typological plausibility. These findings lend credence to the conclusion that LMs do show some typologically-aligned learning preferences, and that the typological patterns may result from, at least to some degree, domain-general learning biases.

Recent work in computational psycholinguistics has revealed intriguing parallels between attention mechanisms and human memory retrieval, focusing primarily on Transformer architectures that operate on token-level representations. However, computational psycholinguistic research has also established that syntactic structures provide compelling explanations for human sentence processing that word-level factors alone cannot fully account for. In this study, we investigate whether the attention mechanism of Transformer Grammar (TG), which uniquely operates on syntactic structures as representational units, can serve as a cognitive model of human memory retrieval, using Normalized Attention Entropy (NAE) as a linking hypothesis between model behavior and human processing difficulty. Our experiments demonstrate that TG's attention achieves superior predictive power for self-paced reading times compared to vanilla Transformer's, with further analyses revealing independent contributions from both models. These findings suggest that human sentence processing involves dual memory representations -- one based on syntactic structures and another on token sequences -- with attention serving as the general retrieval algorithm, while highlighting the importance of incorporating syntactic structures as representational units.

Grammatical error classification plays a crucial role in language learning systems, but existing classification taxonomies often lack rigorous validation, leading to inconsistencies and unreliable feedback. In this paper, we revisit previous classification taxonomies for grammatical errors by introducing a systematic and qualitative evaluation framework. Our approach examines four aspects of a taxonomy, i.e., exclusivity, coverage, balance, and usability. Then, we construct a high-quality grammatical error classification dataset annotated with multiple classification taxonomies and evaluate them grounding on our proposed evaluation framework. Our experiments reveal the drawbacks of existing taxonomies. Our contributions aim to improve the precision and effectiveness of error analysis, providing more understandable and actionable feedback for language learners.

One of the goals of automatic evaluation metrics in grammatical error correction (GEC) is to rank GEC systems such that it matches human preferences. However, current automatic evaluations are based on procedures that diverge from human evaluation. Specifically, human evaluation derives rankings by aggregating sentence-level relative evaluation results, e.g., pairwise comparisons, using a rating algorithm, whereas automatic evaluation averages sentence-level absolute scores to obtain corpus-level scores, which are then sorted to determine rankings. In this study, we propose an aggregation method for existing automatic evaluation metrics which aligns with human evaluation methods to bridge this gap. We conducted experiments using various metrics, including edit-based metrics, $n$-gram based metrics, and sentence-level metrics, and show that resolving the gap improves results for the most of metrics on the SEEDA benchmark. We also found that even BERT-based metrics sometimes outperform the metrics of GPT-4. We publish our unified implementation of the metrics and meta-evaluations.

Question Under Discussion (QUD), which is originally a linguistic analytic framework, gains increasing attention in the community of natural language processing over the years. Various models have been proposed for implementing QUD for discourse processing. This survey summarizes these models, with a focus on application to written texts, and examines studies that explore the relationship between QUD and mainstream discourse frameworks, including RST, PDTB and SDRT. Some questions that may require further study are suggested.

Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like responses to user queries. However, LLMs exhibit inherent limitations, especially because they hallucinate. This paper introduces LP-LM, a system that grounds answers to questions in known facts contained in a knowledge base (KB), facilitated through semantic parsing in Prolog, and always produces answers that are reliable. LP-LM generates a most probable constituency parse tree along with a corresponding Prolog term for an input question via Prolog definite clause grammar (DCG) parsing. The term is then executed against a KB of natural language sentences also represented as Prolog terms for question answering. By leveraging DCG and tabling, LP-LM runs in linear time in the size of input sentences for sufficiently many grammar rules. Performing experiments comparing LP-LM with current well-known LLMs in accuracy, we show that LLMs hallucinate on even simple questions, unlike LP-LM.

Grammatical error correction (GEC) aims to correct grammatical, spelling, and semantic errors in natural language text. With the growing of large language models (LLMs), direct text generation has gradually become the focus of the GEC methods, and few-shot in-context learning presents a cost-effective solution. However, selecting effective in-context examples remains challenging, as the similarity between input texts does not necessarily correspond to similar grammatical error patterns. In this paper, we propose a novel retrieval method based on natural language grammatical error explanations (GEE) to address this issue. Our method retrieves suitable few-shot demonstrations by matching the GEE of the test input with that of pre-constructed database samples, where explanations for erroneous samples are generated by LLMs. We conducted multilingual GEC few-shot experiments on both major open-source and closed-source LLMs. Experiments across five languages show that our method outperforms existing semantic and BM25-based retrieval techniques, without requiring additional training or language adaptation. This also suggests that matching error patterns is key to selecting examples.