Recent work by Hewitt et al. (2020) provides an interpretation of the empirical success of recurrent neural networks (RNNs) as language models (LMs). It shows that RNNs can efficiently represent bounded hierarchical structures that are prevalent in human language. This suggests that RNNs' success might be linked to their ability to model hierarchy. However, a closer inspection of Hewitt et al.'s (2020) construction shows that it is not inherently limited to hierarchical structures. This poses a natural question: What other classes of LMs can RNNs efficiently represent? To this end, we generalize Hewitt et al.'s (2020) construction and show that RNNs can efficiently represent a larger class of LMs than previously claimed -- specifically, those that can be represented by a pushdown automaton with a bounded stack and a specific stack update function. Altogether, the efficiency of representing this diverse class of LMs with RNN LMs suggests novel interpretations of their inductive bias.

The recent successes and spread of large neural language models (LMs) call for a thorough understanding of their computational ability. Describing their computational abilities through LMs' \emph{representational capacity} is a lively area of research. However, investigation into the representational capacity of neural LMs has predominantly focused on their ability to \emph{recognize} formal languages. For example, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) with Heaviside activations are tightly linked to regular languages, i.e., languages defined by finite-state automata (FSAs). Such results, however, fall short of describing the capabilities of RNN \emph{language models} (LMs), which are definitionally \emph{distributions} over strings. We take a fresh look at the representational capacity of RNN LMs by connecting them to \emph{probabilistic} FSAs and demonstrate that RNN LMs with linearly bounded precision can express arbitrary regular LMs.

To answer a question, language models often need to integrate prior knowledge learned during pretraining and new information presented in context. We hypothesize that models perform this integration in a predictable way across different questions and contexts: models will rely more on prior knowledge for questions about entities (e.g., persons, places, etc.) that they are more familiar with due to higher exposure in the training corpus, and be more easily persuaded by some contexts than others. To formalize this problem, we propose two mutual information-based metrics to measure a model's dependency on a context and on its prior about an entity: first, the persuasion score of a given context represents how much a model depends on the context in its decision, and second, the susceptibility score of a given entity represents how much the model can be swayed away from its original answer distribution about an entity. We empirically test our metrics for their validity and reliability. Finally, we explore and find a relationship between the scores and the model's expected familiarity with an entity, and provide two use cases to illustrate their benefits.

The relationship between the quality of a string and its probability $p(\boldsymbol{y})$ under a language model has been influential in the development of techniques to build good text generation systems. For example, several decoding algorithms have been motivated to manipulate $p(\boldsymbol{y})$ to produce higher-quality text. In this work, we examine the probability--quality relationship in language models explicitly aligned to human preferences, e.g., through Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback (RLHF). We find that, given a general language model and its aligned version, for corpora sampled from an aligned language model, there exists a trade-off between the average reward and average log-likelihood of the strings under the general language model. We provide a formal treatment of this issue and demonstrate how a choice of sampling adaptor allows for a selection of how much likelihood we exchange for the reward.

What can large language models learn? By definition, language models (LM) are distributions over strings. Therefore, an intuitive way of addressing the above question is to formalize it as a matter of learnability of classes of distributions over strings. While prior work in this direction focused on assessing the theoretical limits, in contrast, we seek to understand the empirical learnability. Unlike prior empirical work, we evaluate neural LMs on their home turf-learning probabilistic languages-rather than as classifiers of formal languages. In particular, we investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs. We empirically test the learnability of RLMs as a function of various complexity parameters of the RLM and the hidden state size of the neural LM. We find that the RLM rank, which corresponds to the size of linear space spanned by the logits of its conditional distributions, and the expected length of sampled strings are strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers. Several other predictors also reach significance, but with differing patterns between RNNs and Transformers.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit an intriguing ability to learn a novel task from in-context examples presented in a demonstration, termed in-context learning (ICL). Understandably, a swath of research has been dedicated to uncovering the theories underpinning ICL. One popular hypothesis explains ICL by task selection. LLMs identify the task based on the demonstration and generalize it to the prompt. Another popular hypothesis is that ICL is a form of meta-learning, i.e., the models learn a learning algorithm at pre-training time and apply it to the demonstration. Finally, a third hypothesis argues that LLMs use the demonstration to select a composition of tasks learned during pre-training to perform ICL. In this paper, we empirically explore these three hypotheses that explain LLMs' ability to learn in context with a suite of experiments derived from common text classification tasks. We invalidate the first two hypotheses with counterexamples and provide evidence in support of the last hypothesis. Our results suggest an LLM could learn a novel task in context via composing tasks learned during pre-training.

It has been claimed that within a language, morphologically irregular words are more likely to be phonotactically simple and morphologically regular words are more likely to be phonotactically complex. This inverse correlation has been demonstrated in English for a small sample of words, but has yet to be shown for a larger sample of languages. Furthermore, frequency and word length are known to influence both phonotactic complexity and morphological irregularity, and they may be confounding factors in this relationship. Therefore, we examine the relationships between all pairs of these four variables both to assess the robustness of previous findings using improved methodology and as a step towards understanding the underlying causal relationship. Using information-theoretic measures of phonotactic complexity and morphological irregularity (Pimentel et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2019) on 25 languages from UniMorph, we find that there is evidence of a positive relationship between morphological irregularity and phonotactic complexity within languages on average, although the direction varies within individual languages. We also find weak evidence of a negative relationship between word length and morphological irregularity that had not been previously identified, and that some existing findings about the relationships between these four variables are not as robust as previously thought.

Even for common NLP tasks, sufficient supervision is not available in many languages -- morphological tagging is no exception. In the work presented here, we explore a transfer learning scheme, whereby we train character-level recurrent neural taggers to predict morphological taggings for high-resource languages and low-resource languages together. Learning joint character representations among multiple related languages successfully enables knowledge transfer from the high-resource languages to the low-resource ones, improving accuracy by up to 30% over a monolingual model.

Pre-trained language encoders -- functions that represent text as vectors -- are an integral component of many NLP tasks. We tackle a natural question in language encoder analysis: What does it mean for two encoders to be similar? We contend that a faithful measure of similarity needs to be \emph{intrinsic}, that is, task-independent, yet still be informative of \emph{extrinsic} similarity -- the performance on downstream tasks. It is common to consider two encoders similar if they are \emph{homotopic}, i.e., if they can be aligned through some transformation. In this spirit, we study the properties of \emph{affine} alignment of language encoders and its implications on extrinsic similarity. We find that while affine alignment is fundamentally an asymmetric notion of similarity, it is still informative of extrinsic similarity. We confirm this on datasets of natural language representations. Beyond providing useful bounds on extrinsic similarity, affine intrinsic similarity also allows us to begin uncovering the structure of the space of pre-trained encoders by defining an order over them.

We present LEMMING, a modular log-linear model that jointly models lemmatization and tagging and supports the integration of arbitrary global features. It is trainable on corpora annotated with gold standard tags and lemmata and does not rely on morphological dictionaries or analyzers. LEMMING sets the new state of the art in token-based statistical lemmatization on six languages; e.g., for Czech lemmatization, we reduce the error by 60%, from 4.05 to 1.58. We also give empirical evidence that jointly modeling morphological tags and lemmata is mutually beneficial.