Causal Transformers Perform Below Chance on Recursive Nested Constructions, Unlike Humans
Open accessAbstract
Recursive processing is considered a hallmark of human linguistic abilities. A recent study evaluated recursive processing in recurrent neural language models (RNN-LMs) and showed that such models perform below chance level on embedded dependencies within nested constructions -- a prototypical example of recursion in natural language. Here, we study if state-of-the-art Transformer LMs do any better. We test four different Transformer LMs on two different types of nested constructions, which differ in whether the embedded (inner) dependency is short or long range. We find that Transformers achieve near-perfect performance on short-range embedded dependencies, significantly better than previous results reported for RNN-LMs and humans. However, on long-range embedded dependencies, Transformers' performance sharply drops below chance level. Remarkably, the addition of only three words to the embedded dependency caused Transformers to fall from near-perfect to below-chance performance. Taken together, our results reveal Transformers' shortcoming when it comes to recursive, structure-based, processing.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A re-examination of an earlier study showed that apparent syntactic agreement deficits in GPT-2 occurred on instances that were also challenging for humans.
“For instance, a re-examination [100] of an earlier study [101] showed that apparent syntactic agreement deficits in GPT-2 occurred on instances that were also challenging for humans.”
From Dissociating language and thought in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [101]
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
Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Models
Marvin, R., & Linzen, T. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1151 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
BLiMP: the benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for English
Warstadt, A., Parrish, A., Liu, H., Mohananey, A., Peng, W., Wang, S.-F., & Bowman, S. R. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00321 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dissociating language and thought in large language models
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lakretz, Y., Desbordes, T., Hupkes, D., & Dehaene, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2110.07240
- OpenAlex
- W3206084159
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- recursion, transformer language models, human language processing, long-range dependencies, language model evaluation
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