In spoken language, speakers transmit information not only using words, but also via a rich array of non-verbal signals, which include prosody -- the auditory features of speech. However, previous studies have shown that prosodic features exhibit significant redundancy with both past and future words. Here, we examine the time scale of this relationship: How many words in the past (or future) contribute to predicting prosody? We find that this scale differs for past and future words. Prosody's redundancy with past words extends across approximately 3-8 words, whereas redundancy with future words is limited to just 1-2 words. These findings indicate that the prosody-future relationship reflects local word dependencies or short-scale processes such as next word prediction, while the prosody-past relationship unfolds over a longer time scale. The latter suggests that prosody serves to emphasize earlier information that may be challenging for listeners to process given limited cognitive resources in real-time communication. Our results highlight the role of prosody in shaping efficient communication.

In this work, we prove the NP-completeness of two variants of tokenisation, defined as the problem of compressing a dataset to at most $\delta$ symbols by either finding a vocabulary directly (direct tokenisation), or selecting a sequence of merge operations (bottom-up tokenisation).

Surprisal theory posits that the cognitive effort required to comprehend a word is determined by its contextual predictability, quantified as surprisal. Traditionally, surprisal theory treats words as distinct entities, overlooking any potential similarity between them. Giulianelli et al. (2023) address this limitation by introducing information value, a measure of predictability designed to account for similarities between communicative units. Our work leverages Ricotta and Szeidl's (2006) diversity index to extend surprisal into a metric that we term similarity-adjusted surprisal, exposing a mathematical relationship between surprisal and information value. Similarity-adjusted surprisal aligns with information value when considering graded similarities and reduces to standard surprisal when words are treated as distinct. Experimental results with reading time data indicate that similarity-adjusted surprisal adds predictive power beyond standard surprisal for certain datasets, suggesting it serves as a complementary measure of comprehension effort.

Text generation, a key component in applications such as dialogue systems, relies on decoding algorithms that sample strings from a language model distribution. Traditional methods, such as top-$k$ and top-$\pi$, apply local normalisation to the model's output distribution, which can distort it. In this paper, we investigate the effect of this distortion by introducing globally-normalised versions of these decoding methods. Additionally, we propose an independent Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to approximate sampling from globally-normalised distributions without explicitly computing them. Our empirical analysis compares the performance of local and global normalisation across two decoding algorithms (top-$k$ and top-$\pi$) with various hyperparameters, using Pythia language models. Results show that, in most configurations, global decoding performs worse than the local decoding version of the same algorithms -- despite preserving the distribution's integrity. Our results suggest that distortion is an important feature of local decoding algorithms.

Language models (LMs) estimate the probability distribution over sequences of natural language; these distributions are crucial for computing perplexity and surprisal in linguistics research. While we are usually concerned with measuring these values for words, most LMs operate over subwords. Despite seemingly straightforward, accurately computing probabilities over one unit given probabilities over the other requires care. Indeed, we show here that many recent linguistic studies have been incorrectly computing these values. This paper derives the correct methods for computing word probabilities, highlighting issues when relying on language models that use beginning-of-word (bow)-marking tokenisers, e.g., the GPT family. Empirically, we show that correcting the widespread bug in probability computations affects measured outcomes in sentence comprehension and lexical optimisation analyses.

Understanding memorisation in language models has practical and societal implications, e.g., studying models' training dynamics or preventing copyright infringements. Prior work defines memorisation as the causal effect of training with an instance on the model's ability to predict that instance. This definition relies on a counterfactual: the ability to observe what would have happened had the model not seen that instance. Existing methods struggle to provide computationally efficient and accurate estimates of this counterfactual. Further, they often estimate memorisation for a model architecture rather than for a specific model instance. This paper fills an important gap in the literature, proposing a new, principled, and efficient method to estimate memorisation based on the difference-in-differences design from econometrics. Using this method, we characterise a model's memorisation profile--its memorisation trends across training--by only observing its behaviour on a small set of instances throughout training. In experiments with the Pythia model suite, we find that memorisation (i) is stronger and more persistent in larger models, (ii) is determined by data order and learning rate, and (iii) has stable trends across model sizes, thus making memorisation in larger models predictable from smaller ones.

Lexical ambiguity is widespread in language, allowing for the reuse of economical word forms and therefore making language more efficient. If ambiguous words cannot be disambiguated from context, however, this gain in efficiency might make language less clear -- resulting in frequent miscommunication. For a language to be clear and efficiently encoded, we posit that the lexical ambiguity of a word type should correlate with how much information context provides about it, on average. To investigate whether this is the case, we operationalise the lexical ambiguity of a word as the entropy of meanings it can take, and provide two ways to estimate this -- one which requires human annotation (using WordNet), and one which does not (using BERT), making it readily applicable to a large number of languages. We validate these measures by showing that, on six high-resource languages, there are significant Pearson correlations between our BERT-based estimate of ambiguity and the number of synonyms a word has in WordNet (e.g. $\rho = 0.40$ in English). We then test our main hypothesis -- that a word's lexical ambiguity should negatively correlate with its contextual uncertainty -- and find significant correlations on all 18 typologically diverse languages we analyse. This suggests that, in the presence of ambiguity, speakers compensate by making contexts more informative.

Multilinguality is crucial for extending recent advancements in language modelling to diverse linguistic communities. To maintain high performance while representing multiple languages, multilingual models ideally align representations, allowing what is learned in one language to generalise to others. Prior research has emphasised the importance of parallel data and shared vocabulary elements as key factors for such alignment. In this study, we investigate an unintuitive novel driver of cross-lingual generalisation: language imbalance. In controlled experiments on perfectly equivalent cloned languages, we observe that the existence of a predominant language during training boosts the performance of less frequent languages and leads to stronger alignment of model representations across languages. Furthermore, we find that this trend is amplified with scale: with large enough models or long enough training, we observe that bilingual training data with a 90/10 language split yields better performance on both languages than a balanced 50/50 split. Building on these insights, we design training schemes that can improve performance in all cloned languages, even without altering the training data. As we extend our analysis to real languages, we find that infrequent languages still benefit from frequent ones, yet whether language imbalance causes cross-lingual generalisation there is not conclusive.

Tokenisation is a core part of language models (LMs). It involves splitting a character sequence into subwords which are assigned arbitrary indices before being served to the LM. While typically lossless, however, this process may lead to less sample efficient LM training: as it removes character-level information, it could make it harder for LMs to generalise across similar subwords, such as now and Now. We refer to such subwords as near duplicates. In this paper, we study the impact of near duplicate subwords on LM training efficiency. First, we design an experiment that gives us an upper bound to how much we should expect a model to improve if we could perfectly generalise across near duplicates. We do this by duplicating each subword in our LM's vocabulary, creating perfectly equivalent classes of subwords. Experimentally, we find that LMs need roughly 17% more data when trained in a fully duplicated setting. Second, we investigate the impact of naturally occurring near duplicates on LMs. Here, we see that merging them considerably hurts LM performance. Therefore, although subword duplication negatively impacts LM training efficiency, naturally occurring near duplicates may not be as similar as anticipated, limiting the potential for performance improvements.

Sampling is a common strategy for generating text from probabilistic models, yet standard ancestral sampling often results in text that is incoherent or ungrammatical. To alleviate this issue, various modifications to a model's sampling distribution, such as nucleus or top-k sampling, have been introduced and are now ubiquitously used in language generation systems. We propose a unified framework for understanding these techniques, which we term sampling adapters. Sampling adapters often lead to qualitatively better text, which raises the question: From a formal perspective, how are they changing the (sub)word-level distributions of language generation models? And why do these local changes lead to higher-quality text? We argue that the shift they enforce can be viewed as a trade-off between precision and recall: while the model loses its ability to produce certain strings, its precision rate on desirable text increases. While this trade-off is not reflected in standard metrics of distribution quality (such as perplexity), we find that several precision-emphasizing measures indeed indicate that sampling adapters can lead to probability distributions more aligned with the true distribution. Further, these measures correlate with higher sequence-level quality scores, specifically, Mauve.