CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Topic ModelingNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Training language models to summarize narratives improves brain alignment

Open access
Aw, Khai Loong, Toneva, Mariya·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2212.10898arXiv 2212.10898
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Building systems that achieve a deeper understanding of language is one of the central goals of natural language processing (NLP). Towards this goal, recent works have begun to train language models on narrative datasets which require extracting the most critical information by integrating across long contexts. However, it is still an open question whether these models are learning a deeper understanding of the text, or if the models are simply learning a heuristic to complete the task. This work investigates this further by turning to the one language processing system that truly understands complex language: the human brain. We show that training language models for deeper narrative understanding results in richer representations that have improved alignment to human brain activity. We further find that the improvements in brain alignment are larger for character names than for other discourse features, which indicates that these models are learning important narrative elements. Taken together, these results suggest that this type of training can indeed lead to deeper language understanding. These findings have consequences both for cognitive neuroscience by revealing some of the significant factors behind brain-NLP alignment, and for NLP by highlighting that understanding of long-range context can be improved beyond language modeling.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2212.10898

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Mostafa Abdou, Ana Valeria Gonz´ alez, Mariya Toneva, Daniel Hershcovich, and Anders Søgaard. Does injecting linguistic structure into language models lead to better alignment with brain recordings? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.12608 , 2021. · arXiv
  2. Richard Antonello and Alexander Huth. Predictive coding or just feature discovery? an alternative account of why language models fit brain data. Neurobiology of Language , pp. 1-16, 2022.
  3. Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150 , 2020. · arXiv
  4. Jeffrey R Binder, Rutvik H Desai, William W Graves, and Lisa L Conant. Where is the semantic system? a critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral cortex , 19(12):2767-2796, 2009.
  5. Charlotte Caucheteux and Jean-R´ emi King. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications biology , 5(1):134, 2022.
  6. Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and Jean-Remi King. Decomposing lexical and compositional syntax and semantics with deep language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01620 , 2021. · arXiv
  7. E. Fedorenko, P.-J. Hsieh, A. Nieto-Castanon, S. Whitfield-Gabrieli, and N. Kanwisher. New method for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. Journal of Neurophysiology , 104(2):1177-1194, 2010.
  8. Evelina Fedorenko and Sharon L Thompson-Schill. Reworking the language network. Trends in cognitive sciences , 18(3):120-126, 2014.
  9. Ariel Goldstein, Zaid Zada, Eliav Buchnik, Mariano Schain, Amy Price, Bobbi Aubrey, Samuel A Nastase, Amir Feder, Dotan Emanuel, Alon Cohen, et al. Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nature neuroscience , 25(3):369-380, 2022.
  10. Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07916 , 2021. · arXiv
  11. Alexander G Huth, Wendy A De Heer, Thomas L Griffiths, Fr´ ed´ eric E Theunissen, and Jack L Gallant. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature , 532 (7600):453-458, 2016.
  12. Shailee Jain and Alexander Huth. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fMRI. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 6628-6637, 2018.
  13. Tom´ aˇ s Koˇ cisk` y, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, G´ abor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 6:317-328, 2018.
  14. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pretraining for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 , 2019. · arXiv
  15. Tal Linzen. How can we accelerate progress towards human-like linguistic generalization? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 5210-5217, 2020.
  16. RThomas McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01007 , 2019. · arXiv
  17. Gabriele Merlin and Mariya Toneva. Language models and brain alignment: beyond word-level semantics and prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00596 , 2022. · arXiv
  18. Junghyun Min, R Thomas McCoy, Dipanjan Das, Emily Pitler, and Tal Linzen. Syntactic data augmentation increases robustness to inference heuristics. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 2339-2352, 2020.
  19. Tom M Mitchell, Svetlana V Shinkareva, Andrew Carlson, Kai-Min Chang, Vicente L Malave, Robert A Mason, and Marcel Adam Just. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. science , 320(5880):1191-1195, 2008.
  20. Marius Mosbach, Anna Khokhlova, Michael A Hedderich, and Dietrich Klakow. On the interplay between fine-tuning and sentence-level probing for linguistic knowledge in pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02616 , 2020. · arXiv
  21. Shinji Nishimoto, An T Vu, Thomas Naselaris, Yuval Benjamini, Bin Yu, and Jack L Gallant. Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies. Current biology , 21(19):1641-1646, 2011.
  22. Subba Reddy Oota, Jashn Arora, Veeral Agarwal, Mounika Marreddy, Manish Gupta, and Bapi Raju Surampudi. Neural language taskonomy: Which nlp tasks are the most predictive of fmri brain activity? arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01404 , 2022. · arXiv
  23. Alexandre Pasquiou, Yair Lakretz, John T Hale, Bertrand Thirion, and Christophe Pallier. Neural language models are not born equal to fit brain data, but training helps. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 17499-17516. PMLR, 2022.
  24. Aniketh Janardhan Reddy and Leila Wehbe. Can fmri reveal the representation of syntactic structure in the brain? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:9843-9856, 2021.
  25. Yisi Sang, Xiangyang Mou, Jing Li, Jeffrey Stanton, and Mo Yu. A survey of machine narrative reading comprehension assessments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00299 , 2022. · arXiv
  26. Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118(45), 2021.
  27. Dan Schwartz, Mariya Toneva, and Leila Wehbe. Inducing brain-relevant bias in natural language processing models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32, 2019.
  28. Anders Søgaard. Evaluating word embeddings with fmri and eye-tracking. In Proceedings of the 1st workshop on evaluating vector-space representations for NLP , pp. 116-121, 2016.
  29. Mariya Toneva and Leila Wehbe. Interpreting and improving natural-language processing (in machines) with natural language-processing (in the brain). Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019.
  30. Mariya Toneva, Tom M Mitchell, and Leila Wehbe. Combining computational controls with natural text reveals aspects of meaning composition. Nature Computational Science , 2(11):745-757, 2022a.
  31. Leila Wehbe, Brian Murphy, Partha Talukdar, Alona Fyshe, Aaditya Ramdas, and Tom Mitchell. Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading subprocesses. PloS one , 9(11):e112575, 2014a.
  32. Leila Wehbe, Ashish Vaswani, Kevin Knight, and Tom Mitchell. Aligning context-based statistical models of language with brain activity during reading. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 233-243, 2014b.
  33. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R´ emi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations , pp. 38-45, 2020.
  34. Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Kumar Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontanon, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, et al. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:17283-17297, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Aw, K. L., & Toneva, M.
ORCID
Toneva, Mariya
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2212.10898
arXiv
2212.10898
OpenAlex
W4312107867
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
narrative comprehension, language model training, neural representations, character names, discourse features, long-range context, language comprehension, cognitive neuroscience

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