Language models (LMs) are capable of acquiring elements of human-like syntactic knowledge. Targeted syntactic evaluation tests have been employed to measure how well they form generalizations about syntactic phenomena in high-resource languages such as English. However, we still lack a thorough understanding of LMs' capacity for syntactic generalizations in low-resource languages, which are responsible for much of the diversity of syntactic patterns worldwide. In this study, we develop targeted syntactic evaluation tests for three low-resource languages (Basque, Hindi, and Swahili) and use them to evaluate five families of open-access multilingual Transformer LMs. We find that some syntactic tasks prove relatively easy for LMs while others (agreement in sentences containing indirect objects in Basque, agreement across a prepositional phrase in Swahili) are challenging. We additionally uncover issues with publicly available Transformers, including a bias toward the habitual aspect in Hindi in multilingual BERT and underperformance compared to similar-sized models in XGLM-4.5B.

The ability to build and leverage world models is essential for a general-purpose AI agent. Testing such capabilities is hard, in part because the building blocks of world models are ill-defined. We present Elements of World Knowledge (EWOK), a framework for evaluating world modeling in language models by testing their ability to use knowledge of a concept to match a target text with a plausible/implausible context. EWOK targets specific concepts from multiple knowledge domains known to be vital for world modeling in humans. Domains range from social interactions (help/hinder) to spatial relations (left/right). Both, contexts and targets are minimal pairs. Objects, agents, and locations in the items can be flexibly filled in enabling easy generation of multiple controlled datasets. We then introduce EWOK-CORE-1.0, a dataset of 4,374 items covering 11 world knowledge domains. We evaluate 20 openweights large language models (1.3B--70B parameters) across a battery of evaluation paradigms along with a human norming study comprising 12,480 measurements. The overall performance of all tested models is worse than human performance, with results varying drastically across domains. These data highlight simple cases where even large models fail and present rich avenues for targeted research on LLM world modeling capabilities.

We propose an interactive approach to language learning that utilizes linguistic acceptability judgments from an informant (a competent language user) to learn a grammar. Given a grammar formalism and a framework for synthesizing data, our model iteratively selects or synthesizes a data-point according to one of a range of information-theoretic policies, asks the informant for a binary judgment, and updates its own parameters in preparation for the next query. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model in the domain of phonotactics, the rules governing what kinds of sound-sequences are acceptable in a language, and carry out two experiments, one with typologically-natural linguistic data and another with a range of procedurally-generated languages. We find that the information-theoretic policies that our model uses to select items to query the informant achieve sample efficiency comparable to, and sometimes greater than, fully supervised approaches.

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) make human-like linguistic generalizations? Dentella et al. (5) (DGL) prompt several LLMs ("Is the following sentence grammatically correct in English?") to elicit grammaticality judgments of 80 English sentences, concluding that LLMs demonstrate a "yes-response bias" and a "failure to distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical sentences". We re-evaluate LLM performance using well-established practices and find that DGL's data in fact provide evidence for just how well LLMs capture human linguistic judgments. Children learn to produce well-formed sentences without necessarily being able to articulate the underlying grammatical rules, a distinction long noted in linguistics (e.g., 1; 6; 3). DGL blur this distinction: their task requires not just grammatical competence, but also knowing what "grammatically correct" means.

Numerous analyses of reading time (RT) data have been implemented -- all in an effort to better understand the cognitive processes driving reading comprehension. However, data measured on words at the end of a sentence -- or even at the end of a clause -- is often omitted due to the confounding factors introduced by so-called "wrap-up effects," which manifests as a skewed distribution of RTs for these words. Consequently, the understanding of the cognitive processes that might be involved in these wrap-up effects is limited. In this work, we attempt to learn more about these processes by examining the relationship between wrap-up effects and information-theoretic quantities, such as word and context surprisals. We find that the distribution of information in prior contexts is often predictive of sentence- and clause-final RTs (while not of sentence-medial RTs). This lends support to several prior hypotheses about the processes involved in wrap-up effects.

Listeners recognize and integrate words in rapid and noisy everyday speech by combining expectations about upcoming content with incremental sensory evidence. We present a computational model of word recognition which formalizes this perceptual process in Bayesian decision theory. We fit this model to explain scalp EEG signals recorded as subjects passively listened to a fictional story, revealing both the dynamics of the online auditory word recognition process and the neural correlates of the recognition and integration of words. The model reveals distinct neural processing of words depending on whether or not they can be quickly recognized. While all words trigger a neural response characteristic of probabilistic integration -- voltage modulations predicted by a word's surprisal in context -- these modulations are amplified for words which require more than roughly 150 ms of input to be recognized. We observe no difference in the latency of these neural responses according to words' recognition times. Our results are consistent with a two-part model of speech comprehension, combining an eager and rapid process of word recognition with a temporally independent process of word integration. However, we also developed alternative models of the scalp EEG signal not incorporating word recognition dynamics which showed similar performance improvements. We discuss potential future modeling steps which may help to separate these hypotheses.

Prompting is now a dominant method for evaluating the linguistic knowledge of large language models (LLMs). While other methods directly read out models' probability distributions over strings, prompting requires models to access this internal information by processing linguistic input, thereby implicitly testing a new type of emergent ability: metalinguistic judgment. In this study, we compare metalinguistic prompting and direct probability measurements as ways of measuring models' linguistic knowledge. Broadly, we find that LLMs' metalinguistic judgments are inferior to quantities directly derived from representations. Furthermore, consistency gets worse as the prompt query diverges from direct measurements of next-word probabilities. Our findings suggest that negative results relying on metalinguistic prompts cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that an LLM lacks a particular linguistic generalization. Our results also highlight the value that is lost with the move to closed APIs where access to probability distributions is limited.

Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing in subtle and unpredictable ways. In this work, we investigate the validity of instead reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC: Logical Inference via Neurosymbolic Computation. In LINC, the LLM acts as a semantic parser, translating premises and conclusions from natural language to expressions in first-order logic. These expressions are then offloaded to an external theorem prover, which symbolically performs deductive inference. Leveraging this approach, we observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate. On ProofWriter, augmenting the comparatively small open-source StarCoder+ (15.5B parameters) with LINC even outperforms GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by an absolute 38% and 10%, respectively. When used with GPT-4, LINC scores 26% higher than CoT on ProofWriter while performing comparatively on FOLIO. Further analysis reveals that although both methods on average succeed roughly equally often on this dataset, they exhibit distinct and complementary failure modes. We thus provide promising evidence for how logical reasoning over natural language can be tackled through jointly leveraging LLMs alongside symbolic provers. All corresponding code is publicly available at https://github.com/benlipkin/linc

Over the past two decades, numerous studies have demonstrated how less predictable (i.e., higher surprisal) words take more time to read. In general, these studies have implicitly assumed the reading process is purely responsive: Readers observe a new word and allocate time to process it as required. We argue that prior results are also compatible with a reading process that is at least partially anticipatory: Readers could make predictions about a future word and allocate time to process it based on their expectation. In this work, we operationalize this anticipation as a word's contextual entropy. We assess the effect of anticipation on reading by comparing how well surprisal and contextual entropy predict reading times on four naturalistic reading datasets: two self-paced and two eye-tracking. Experimentally, across datasets and analyses, we find substantial evidence for effects of contextual entropy over surprisal on a word's reading time (RT): in fact, entropy is sometimes better than surprisal in predicting a word's RT. Spillover effects, however, are generally not captured by entropy, but only by surprisal. Further, we hypothesize four cognitive mechanisms through which contextual entropy could impact RTs -- three of which we are able to design experiments to analyze. Overall, our results support a view of reading that is not just responsive, but also anticipatory.

While natural languages differ widely in both canonical word order and word order flexibility, their word orders still follow shared cross-linguistic statistical patterns, often attributed to functional pressures. In the effort to identify these pressures, prior work has compared real and counterfactual word orders. Yet one functional pressure has been overlooked in such investigations: the uniform information density (UID) hypothesis, which holds that information should be spread evenly throughout an utterance. Here, we ask whether a pressure for UID may have influenced word order patterns cross-linguistically. To this end, we use computational models to test whether real orders lead to greater information uniformity than counterfactual orders. In our empirical study of 10 typologically diverse languages, we find that: (i) among SVO languages, real word orders consistently have greater uniformity than reverse word orders, and (ii) only linguistically implausible counterfactual orders consistently exceed the uniformity of real orders. These findings are compatible with a pressure for information uniformity in the development and usage of natural languages.