In NLP, incremental processors produce output in instalments, based on incoming prefixes of the linguistic input. Some tokens trigger revisions, causing edits to the output hypothesis, but little is known about why models revise when they revise. A policy that detects the time steps where revisions should happen can improve efficiency. Still, retrieving a suitable signal to train a revision policy is an open problem, since it is not naturally available in datasets. In this work, we investigate the appropriateness of regressions and skips in human reading eye-tracking data as signals to inform revision policies in incremental sequence labelling. Using generalised mixed-effects models, we find that the probability of regressions and skips by humans can potentially serve as useful predictors for revisions in BiLSTMs and Transformer models, with consistent results for various languages.

Natural Language Processing prides itself to be an empirically-minded, if not outright empiricist field, and yet lately it seems to get itself into essentialist debates on issues of meaning and measurement ("Do Large Language Models Understand Language, And If So, How Much?"). This is not by accident: Here, as everywhere, the evidence underspecifies the understanding. As a remedy, this paper sketches the outlines of a model of understanding, which can ground questions of the adequacy of current methods of measurement of model quality. The paper makes three claims: A) That different language use situation types have different characteristics, B) That language understanding is a multifaceted phenomenon, bringing together individualistic and social processes, and C) That the choice of Understanding Indicator marks the limits of benchmarking, and the beginnings of considerations of the ethics of NLP use.

Recent conditional language models are able to continue any kind of text source in an often seemingly fluent way. This fact encouraged research in the area of open-domain conversational systems that are based on powerful language models and aim to imitate an interlocutor by generating appropriate contributions to a written dialogue. From a linguistic perspective, however, the complexity of contributing to a conversation is high. In this survey, we interpret Grice's maxims of cooperative conversation from the perspective of this specific research area and systematize the literature under the aspect of what makes a contribution appropriate: A neural conversation model has to be fluent, informative, consistent, coherent, and follow social norms. In order to ensure these qualities, recent approaches try to tame the underlying language models at various intervention points, such as data, training regime or decoding. Sorted by these categories and intervention points, we discuss promising attempts and suggest novel ways for future research.

Incremental dialogue model components produce a sequence of output prefixes based on incoming input. Mistakes can occur due to local ambiguities or to wrong hypotheses, making the ability to revise past outputs a desirable property that can be governed by a policy. In this work, we formalise and characterise edits and revisions in incremental sequence labelling and propose metrics to evaluate revision policies. We then apply our methodology to profile the incremental behaviour of three Transformer-based encoders in various tasks, paving the road for better revision policies.

Instruction Clarification Requests are a mechanism to solve communication problems, which is very functional in instruction-following interactions. Recent work has argued that the CoDraw dataset is a valuable source of naturally occurring iCRs. Beyond identifying when iCRs should be made, dialogue models should also be able to generate them with suitable form and content. In this work, we introduce CoDraw-iCR (v2), extending the existing iCR identifiers with fine-grained information grounded in the underlying dialogue game items and possible actions. Our annotation can serve to model and evaluate repair capabilities of dialogue agents.

NLP tasks are typically defined extensionally through datasets containing example instantiations (e.g., pairs of image i and text t), but motivated intensionally through capabilities invoked in verbal descriptions of the task (e.g., "t is a description of i, for which the content of i needs to be recognised and understood"). We present Pento-DIARef, a diagnostic dataset in a visual domain of puzzle pieces where referring expressions are generated by a well-known symbolic algorithm (the "Incremental Algorithm"), which itself is motivated by appeal to a hypothesised capability (eliminating distractors through application of Gricean maxims). Our question then is whether the extensional description (the dataset) is sufficient for a neural model to pick up the underlying regularity and exhibit this capability given the simple task definition of producing expressions from visual inputs. We find that a model supported by a vision detection step and a targeted data generation scheme achieves an almost perfect BLEU@1 score and sentence accuracy, whereas simpler baselines do not.

Large language models have demonstrated robust performance on various language tasks using zero-shot or few-shot learning paradigms. While being actively researched, multimodal models that can additionally handle images as input have yet to catch up in size and generality with language-only models. In this work, we ask whether language-only models can be utilised for tasks that require visual input -- but also, as we argue, often require a strong reasoning component. Similar to some recent related work, we make visual information accessible to the language model using separate verbalisation models. Specifically, we investigate the performance of open-source, open-access language models against GPT-3 on five vision-language tasks when given textually-encoded visual information. Our results suggest that language models are effective for solving vision-language tasks even with limited samples. This approach also enhances the interpretability of a model's output by providing a means of tracing the output back through the verbalised image content.

The ability to pick up on language signals in an ongoing interaction is crucial for future machine learning models to collaborate and interact with humans naturally. In this paper, we present an initial study that evaluates intraepisodic feedback given in a collaborative setting. We use a referential language game as a controllable example of a task-oriented collaborative joint activity. A teacher utters a referring expression generated by a well-known symbolic algorithm (the "Incremental Algorithm") as an initial instruction and then monitors the follower's actions to possibly intervene with intra-episodic feedback (which does not explicitly have to be requested). We frame this task as a reinforcement learning problem with sparse rewards and learn a follower policy for a heuristic teacher. Our results show that intra-episodic feedback allows the follower to generalize on aspects of scene complexity and Figure 1: An exemplary interaction between a teacher performs better than providing only the initial and a follower that controls the gripper (the grey statement.

Language is by its very nature incremental in how it is produced and processed. This property can be exploited by NLP systems to produce fast responses, which has been shown to be beneficial for real-time interactive applications. Recent neural network-based approaches for incremental processing mainly use RNNs or Transformers. RNNs are fast but monotonic (cannot correct earlier output, which can be necessary in incremental processing). Transformers, on the other hand, consume whole sequences, and hence are by nature non-incremental. A restart-incremental interface that repeatedly passes longer input prefixes can be used to obtain partial outputs, while providing the ability to revise. However, this method becomes costly as the sentence grows longer. In this work, we propose the Two-pass model for AdaPtIve Revision (TAPIR) and introduce a method to obtain an incremental supervision signal for learning an adaptive revision policy. Experimental results on sequence labelling show that our model has better incremental performance and faster inference speed compared to restart-incremental Transformers, while showing little degradation on full sequences.

How does one measure "ability to understand language"? If it is a person's ability that is being measured, this is a question that almost never poses itself in an unqualified manner: Whatever formal test is applied, it takes place on the background of the person's language use in daily social practice, and what is measured is a specialised variety of language understanding (e.g., of a second language; or of written, technical language). Computer programs do not have this background. What does that mean for the applicability of formal tests of language understanding? I argue that such tests need to be complemented with tests of language use embedded in a practice, to arrive at a more comprehensive evaluation of "artificial language understanding". To do such tests systematically, I propose to use "Dialogue Games" -- constructed activities that provide a situational embedding for language use. I describe a taxonomy of Dialogue Game types, linked to a model of underlying capabilites that are tested, and thereby giving an argument for the \emph{construct validity} of the test. I close with showing how the internal structure of the taxonomy suggests an ordering from more specialised to more general situational language understanding, which potentially can provide some strategic guidance for development in this field.