Understanding the expressive power of transformers has recently attracted attention, as it offers insights into their abilities and limitations. Many studies analyze unique hard attention transformers, where attention selects a single position that maximizes the attention scores. When multiple positions achieve the maximum score, either the rightmost or the leftmost of those is chosen. In this paper, we highlight the importance of this seeming triviality. Recently, finite-precision transformers with both leftmost- and rightmost-hard attention were shown to be equivalent to Linear Temporal Logic (LTL). We show that this no longer holds with only leftmost-hard attention -- in that case, they correspond to a \emph{strictly weaker} fragment of LTL. Furthermore, we show that models with leftmost-hard attention are equivalent to \emph{soft} attention, suggesting they may better approximate real-world transformers than right-attention models. These findings refine the landscape of transformer expressivity and underscore the role of attention directionality.

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.

BabyLM aims to dissolve the boundaries between cognitive modeling and language modeling. We call for both workshop papers and for researchers to join the 3rd BabyLM competition. As in previous years, we call for participants in the data-efficient pretraining challenge in the general track. This year, we also offer a new track: INTERACTION. This new track encourages interactive behavior, learning from a teacher, and adapting the teaching material to the student. We also call for papers outside the competition in any relevant areas. These include training efficiency, cognitively plausible research, weak model evaluation, and more.

Language models (LMs) are increasingly being studied as models of human language learners. Due to the nascency of the field, it is not well-established whether LMs exhibit similar learning dynamics to humans, and there are few direct comparisons between learning trajectories in humans and models. Word learning trajectories for children are relatively well-documented, and recent work has tried to extend these investigations to language models. However, there are no widely agreed-upon metrics for word learning in language models. We take a distributional approach to this problem, defining lexical knowledge in terms of properties of the learned distribution for a target word. We argue that distributional signatures studied in prior work fail to capture key distributional information. Thus, we propose an array of signatures that improve on earlier approaches by capturing knowledge of both where the target word can and cannot occur as well as gradient preferences about the word's appropriateness. We obtain learning trajectories for a selection of small language models we train from scratch, study the relationship between different distributional signatures, compare how well they align with human word learning trajectories and interpretable lexical features, and address basic methodological questions about estimating these distributional signatures. Our metrics largely capture complementary information, suggesting that it is important not to rely on a single metric. However, across all metrics, language models' learning trajectories fail to correlate with those of children.

Extracting finite state automata (FSAs) from black-box models offers a powerful approach to gaining interpretable insights into complex model behaviors. To support this pursuit, we present a weighted variant of Angluin's (1987) $\mathbf{L^*}$ algorithm for learning FSAs. We stay faithful to the original algorithm, devising a way to exactly learn deterministic weighted FSAs whose weights support division. Furthermore, we formulate the learning process in a manner that highlights the connection with FSA minimization, showing how $\mathbf{L^*}$ directly learns a minimal automaton for the target language.

Understanding and manipulating the causal generation mechanisms in language models is essential for controlling their behavior. Previous work has primarily relied on techniques such as representation surgery -- e.g., model ablations or manipulation of linear subspaces tied to specific concepts -- to \emph{intervene} on these models. To understand the impact of interventions precisely, it is useful to examine counterfactuals -- e.g., how a given sentence would have appeared had it been generated by the model following a specific intervention. We highlight that counterfactual reasoning is conceptually distinct from interventions, as articulated in Pearl's causal hierarchy. Based on this observation, we propose a framework for generating true string counterfactuals by reformulating language models as a structural equation model using the Gumbel-max trick, which we called Gumbel counterfactual generation. This reformulation allows us to model the joint distribution over original strings and their counterfactuals resulting from the same instantiation of the sampling noise. We develop an algorithm based on hindsight Gumbel sampling that allows us to infer the latent noise variables and generate counterfactuals of observed strings. Our experiments demonstrate that the approach produces meaningful counterfactuals while at the same time showing that commonly used intervention techniques have considerable undesired side effects.

The BabyLM Challenge is a community effort to close the data-efficiency gap between human and computational language learners. Participants compete to optimize language model training on a fixed language data budget of 100 million words or less. This year, we released improved text corpora, as well as a vision-and-language corpus to facilitate research into cognitively plausible vision language models. Submissions were compared on evaluation tasks targeting grammatical ability, (visual) question answering, pragmatic abilities, and grounding, among other abilities. Participants could submit to a 10M-word text-only track, a 100M-word text-only track, and/or a 100M-word and image multimodal track. From 31 submissions employing diverse methods, a hybrid causal-masked language model architecture outperformed other approaches. No submissions outperformed the baselines in the multimodal track. In follow-up analyses, we found a strong relationship between training FLOPs and average performance across tasks, and that the best-performing submissions proposed changes to the training data, training objective, and model architecture. This year's BabyLM Challenge shows that there is still significant room for innovation in this setting, in particular for image-text modeling, but community-driven research can yield actionable insights about effective strategies for small-scale language modeling.

Language models are widely used in computational psycholinguistics to test theories that relate the negative log probability (the surprisal) of a region of interest (a substring of characters) under a language model to its cognitive cost experienced by readers, as operationalized, for example, by gaze duration on the region. However, the application of modern language models to psycholinguistic studies is complicated by the practice of using tokenization as an intermediate step in training a model. Doing so results in a language model over token strings rather than one over character strings. Vexingly, regions of interest are generally misaligned with these token strings. The paper argues that token-level language models should be (approximately) marginalized into character-level language models before they are used in psycholinguistic studies to compute the surprisal of a region of interest; then, the marginalized character-level language model can be used to compute the surprisal of an arbitrary character substring, which we term a focal area, that the experimenter may wish to use as a predictor. Our proposal of marginalizing a token-level model into a character-level one solves this misalignment issue independently of the tokenization scheme. Empirically, we discover various focal areas whose surprisal is a better psychometric predictor than the surprisal of the region of interest itself.

Modern language models are internally -- and mathematically -- distributions over token strings rather than \emph{character} strings, posing numerous challenges for programmers building user applications on top of them. For example, if a prompt is specified as a character string, it must be tokenized before passing it to the token-level language model. Thus, the tokenizer and consequent analyses are very sensitive to the specification of the prompt (e.g., if the prompt ends with a space or not). This paper presents algorithms for converting token-level language models to character-level ones. We present both exact and approximate algorithms. In the empirical portion of the paper, we benchmark the practical runtime and approximation quality. We find that -- even with a small computation budget -- our method is able to accurately approximate the character-level distribution (less than 0.00021 excess bits / character) at reasonably fast speeds (46.3 characters / second) on the Llama 3.1 8B language model.

Recent work finds that retrieval-augmented generation with large language models is prone to be influenced by the order of retrieved documents in the context. However, the lack of in-depth analysis limits the use of this phenomenon for prompt engineering in practice. In this study, we posit that likelihoods serve as an effective gauge for language model performance. Through experiments on two question-answering datasets with a variety of state-of-the-art language models, we reveal correlations between answer accuracy and the likelihood of the question at both the corpus level and the instance level. In addition, we find that question likelihood can also indicate the position of the task-relevant information in the context. Based on these findings, we propose two methods that use question likelihood as a gauge for selecting and constructing prompts that lead to better performance. We demonstrate their effectiveness with experiments. In addition, our likelihood-based methods are efficient, as they only need to compute the likelihood of the input, requiring much fewer language model passes than heuristic prompt engineering methods that require generating responses. Our analysis deepens our understanding of how input prompts affect model performance and provides a promising direction for efficient prompt optimization.