We present a hierarchy of natural language understanding abilities and argue for the importance of moving beyond assessments of understanding at the lexical and sentence levels to the discourse level. We propose the task of anaphora accessibility as a diagnostic for assessing discourse understanding, and to this end, present an evaluation dataset inspired by theoretical research in dynamic semantics. We evaluate human and LLM performance on our dataset and find that LLMs and humans align on some tasks and diverge on others. Such divergence can be explained by LLMs' reliance on specific lexical items during language comprehension, in contrast to human sensitivity to structural abstractions.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown the emergent capability of in-context learning (ICL). One line of research has explained ICL as functionally performing gradient descent. In this paper, we introduce a new way of diagnosing whether ICL is functionally equivalent to gradient-based learning. Our approach is based on the inverse frequency effect (IFE) -- a phenomenon in which an error-driven learner is expected to show larger updates when trained on infrequent examples than frequent ones. The IFE has previously been studied in psycholinguistics because humans show this effect in the context of structural priming (the tendency for people to produce sentence structures they have encountered recently); the IFE has been used as evidence that human structural priming must involve error-driven learning mechanisms. In our experiments, we simulated structural priming within ICL and found that LLMs display the IFE, with the effect being stronger in larger models. We conclude that ICL is indeed a type of gradient-based learning, supporting the hypothesis that a gradient component is implicitly computed in the forward pass during ICL. Our results suggest that both humans and LLMs make use of gradient-based, error-driven processing mechanisms.

Discourse Entity (DE) recognition is the task of identifying novel and known entities introduced within a text. While previous work has found that large language models have basic, if imperfect, DE recognition abilities (Schuster and Linzen, 2022), it remains largely unassessed which of the fundamental semantic properties that govern the introduction and subsequent reference to DEs they have knowledge of. We propose the Linguistically-Informed Evaluation for Discourse Entity Recognition (LIEDER) dataset that allows for a detailed examination of language models' knowledge of four crucial semantic properties: existence, uniqueness, plurality, and novelty. We find evidence that state-of-the-art large language models exhibit sensitivity to all of these properties except novelty, which demonstrates that they have yet to reach human-level language understanding abilities.

Language models are typically evaluated on their success at predicting the distribution of specific words in specific contexts. Yet linguistic knowledge also encodes relationships between contexts, allowing inferences between word distributions. We investigate the degree to which pre-trained Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) represent such relationships, focusing on the domain of argument structure. We find that LLMs perform well in generalizing the distribution of a novel noun argument between related contexts that were seen during pre-training (e.g., the active object and passive subject of the verb spray), succeeding by making use of the semantically-organized structure of the embedding space for word embeddings. However, LLMs fail at generalizations between related contexts that have not been observed during pre-training, but which instantiate more abstract, but well-attested structural generalizations (e.g., between the active object and passive subject of an arbitrary verb). Instead, in this case, LLMs show a bias to generalize based on linear order. This finding points to a limitation with current models and points to a reason for which their training is data-intensive.s reported here are available at https://github.com/clay-lab/structural-alternations.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

When acquiring syntax, children consistently choose hierarchical rules over competing non-hierarchical possibilities. Is this preference due to a learning bias for hierarchical structure, or due to more general biases that interact with hierarchical cues in children's linguistic input? We explore these possibilities by training LSTMs and Transformers - two types of neural networks without a hierarchical bias - on data similar in quantity and content to children's linguistic input: text from the CHILDES corpus. We then evaluate what these models have learned about English yes/no questions, a phenomenon for which hierarchical structure is crucial. We find that, though they perform well at capturing the surface statistics of child-directed speech (as measured by perplexity), both model types generalize in a way more consistent with an incorrect linear rule than the correct hierarchical rule. These results suggest that human-like generalization from text alone requires stronger biases than the general sequence-processing biases of standard neural network architectures.

A sharp tension exists about the nature of human language between two opposite parties: those who believe that statistical surface distributions, in particular using measures like surprisal, provide a better understanding of language processing, vs. those who believe that discrete hierarchical structures implementing linguistic information such as syntactic ones are a better tool. In this paper, we show that this dichotomy is a false one. Relying on the fact that statistical measures can be defined on the basis of either structural or non-structural models, we provide empirical evidence that only models of surprisal that reflect syntactic structure are able to account for language regularities.