Language model architectures are predominantly first created for English and subsequently applied to other languages. It is an open question whether this architectural bias leads to degraded performance for languages that are structurally different from English. We examine one specific architectural choice: positional encodings, through the lens of the trade-off hypothesis: the supposed interplay between morphological complexity and word order flexibility. This hypothesis posits a trade-off between the two: a more morphologically complex language can have a more flexible word order, and vice-versa. Positional encodings are a direct target to investigate the implications of this hypothesis in relation to language modelling. We pretrain monolingual model variants with absolute, relative, and no positional encodings for seven typologically diverse languages and evaluate them on four downstream tasks. Contrary to previous findings, we do not observe a clear interaction between position encodings and morphological complexity or word order flexibility, as measured by various proxies. Our results show that the choice of tasks, languages, and metrics are essential for drawing stable conclusions

The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their ability to generate natural language, making texts generated by LLMs increasingly indistinguishable from human-written texts. While recent research has primarily focused on using LLMs to classify text as either human-written or machine-generated texts, our study focuses on characterizing these texts using a set of linguistic features across different linguistic levels such as morphology, syntax, and semantics. We select a dataset of human-written and machine-generated texts spanning 8 domains and produced by 11 different LLMs. We calculate different linguistic features such as dependency length and emotionality, and we use them for characterizing human-written and machine-generated texts along with different sampling strategies, repetition controls, and model release dates. Our statistical analysis reveals that human-written texts tend to exhibit simpler syntactic structures and more diverse semantic content. Furthermore, we calculate the variability of our set of features across models and domains. Both human- and machine-generated texts show stylistic diversity across domains, with human-written texts displaying greater variation in our features. Finally, we apply style embeddings to further test variability among human-written and machine-generated texts. Notably, newer models output text that is similarly variable, pointing to a homogenization of machine-generated texts.

Soft robotics holds transformative potential for enabling adaptive and adaptable systems in dynamic environments. However, the interplay between morphological and control complexities and their collective impact on task performance remains poorly understood. Therefore, in this study, we investigate these trade-offs across tasks of differing difficulty levels using four well-used morphological complexity metrics and control complexity measured by FLOPs. We investigate how these factors jointly influence task performance by utilizing the evolutionary robot experiments. Results show that optimal performance depends on the alignment between morphology and control: simpler morphologies and lightweight controllers suffice for easier tasks, while harder tasks demand higher complexities in both dimensions. In addition, a clear trade-off between morphological and control complexities that achieve the same task performance can be observed. Moreover, we also propose a sensitivity analysis to expose the task-specific contributions of individual morphological metrics. Our study establishes a framework for investigating the relationships between morphology, control, and task performance, advancing the development of task-specific robotic designs that balance computational efficiency with adaptability. This study contributes to the practical application of soft robotics in real-world scenarios by providing actionable insights.

Morphology is a crucial factor for multilingual language modeling as it poses direct challenges for tokenization. Here, we seek to understand how tokenization influences the morphological knowledge encoded in multilingual language models. Specifically, we capture the impact of tokenization by contrasting two multilingual language models: mT5 and ByT5. The two models share the same architecture, training objective, and training data and only differ in their tokenization strategies: subword tokenization vs.\@ character-level tokenization. Probing the morphological knowledge encoded in these models on four tasks and 17 languages, our analyses show that the models learn the morphological systems of some languages better than others and that morphological information is encoded in the middle and late layers. Finally, we show that languages with more irregularities benefit more from having a higher share of the pre-training data.

Contemporary deep learning models effectively handle languages with diverse morphology despite not being directly integrated into them. Morphology and word order are closely linked, with the latter incorporated into transformer-based models through positional encodings. This prompts a fundamental inquiry: Is there a correlation between the morphological complexity of a language and the utilization of positional encoding in pre-trained language models? In pursuit of an answer, we present the first study addressing this question, encompassing 22 languages and 5 downstream tasks. Our findings reveal that the importance of positional encoding diminishes with increasing morphological complexity in languages. Our study motivates the need for a deeper understanding of positional encoding, augmenting them to better reflect the different languages under consideration.

In a recent paper published in the Journal of Language Evolution, Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzad005, KEW) challenge the results presented in one of my papers (Koplenig, Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181274 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181274), in which I tried to show through a series of statistical analyses that large numbers of L2 (second language) speakers do not seem to affect the (grammatical or statistical) complexity of a language. To this end, I focus on the way in which the Ethnologue assesses language status: a language is characterised as vehicular if, in addition to being used by L1 (first language) speakers, it should also have a significant number of L2 users. KEW criticise both the use of vehicularity as a (binary) indicator of whether a language has a significant number of L2 users and the idea of imputing a zero proportion of L2 speakers to non-vehicular languages whenever a direct estimate of that proportion is unavailable. While I recognise the importance of post-publication commentary on published research, I show in this rejoinder that both points of criticism are explicitly mentioned and analysed in my paper. In addition, I also comment on other points raised by KEW and demonstrate that both alternative analyses offered by KEW do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

Thanks to advancements in speech and natural language processing, there is hope that one day you may be able to ask your virtual assistant what the best salad ingredients are. Currently, it is possible to ask your home gadget to play music, or open on voice command, which is a feature already found in some many devices. If you speak Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian, Sudanese, or any of the other dialects of the Arabic language, which are immensely varied from region to region, where some of them are mutually unintelligible, it is a different story. If your native tongue is Arabic, Finnish, Mongolian, Navajo, or any other language with high level of morphological complexity, you may feel left out. These complex constructs intrigued Ahmed Ali to find a solution.