Cited by 82Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

How much do language models copy from their training data? evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN

Open access
McCoy, R. Thomas, Smolensky, Paul, Linzen, Tal, Gao, Jianfeng, Celikyilmaz, Asli·2023·Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? To tease apart these possibilities, we introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text, focusing on sequential structure (n-grams) and syntactic structure. We apply these analyses to four neural language models trained on English (an LSTM, a Transformer, Transformer-XL, and GPT-2). For local structure—e.g., individual dependencies—text generated with a standard sampling scheme is substantially less novel than our baseline of human-generated text from each model’s test set. For larger-scale structure—e.g., overall sentence structure—model-generated text is as novel or even more novel than the human-generated baseline, but models still sometimes copy substantially, in some cases duplicating passages over 1,000 words long from the training set. We also perform extensive manual analysis, finding evidence that GPT-2 uses both compositional and analogical generalization mechanisms and showing that GPT-2’s novel text is usually well-formed morphologically and syntactically but has reasonably frequent semantic issues (e.g., being self-contradictory).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/tacl_a_00567

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs can mimic biases and other deficiencies from their training data or even outright plagiarize.

    “LLMs can mimic biases and other deficiencies from their training data (38–41) or even outright plagiarize (42).”
  • Similar successes in performance and emergent structure have been shown in other linguistic domains, including emergent phonological structure, productive generation of morphologically complex neologisms, and rich lexical semantic information.

    “But similar successes, both in performance and emergent structure, have been shown in other linguistic domains (e.g., emergent phonological structure [72], productive generation of morphologically complex neologisms [73], rich lexical semantic information [74], etc.).”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

  • Models seem to often be able to use novel words appropriately.

    “Models also seem to (often) be able to use novel words appropriately [69, 73].”

    From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

  • LLMs may be capable of generating artifacts that are new.

    “Their stochastic nature and the variety of prompts that are usually provided commonly lead to novel outcomes (McCoy et al., 2023); LLMs may therefore be capable of generating artifacts that are also new.”

    From On the creativity of large language models (2025) · cites this paper as McCoy et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. PMLR.
  2. Brenden Lake and Marco Baroni. 2018. Gen- eralization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2873-2882.
  3. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mix- ture models. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCoy, R. T., Smolensky, P., Linzen, T., Gao, J., & Celikyilmaz, A.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Meta AI, USA. aslic@meta.com
Corresponding author
  • McCoy, R. Thomas
  • Smolensky, Paul
  • Linzen, Tal
  • Gao, Jianfeng
Venue
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2023
Volume
11
Pages
652-670
ISSN
2307-387X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3213407400
Cited by
70
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1746891)
  • Microsoft Research
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Maryland Advanced Research Computing Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
text generation, ravens, n-gram analysis, syntactic structure, compositional generalization, GPT-2, Transformer-XL, LSTM, semantic coherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review