CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 91Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Dissociating language and thought in large language models

Open access
Mahowald, Kyle, Ivanova, Anna A., Blank, Idan A., Kanwisher, Nancy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B., Fedorenko, Evelina·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2301.06627arXiv 2301.06627
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have come closest among all models to date to mastering human language, yet opinions about their linguistic and cognitive capabilities remain split. Here, we evaluate LLMs using a distinction between formal linguistic competence -- knowledge of linguistic rules and patterns -- and functional linguistic competence -- understanding and using language in the world. We ground this distinction in human neuroscience, which has shown that formal and functional competence rely on different neural mechanisms. Although LLMs are surprisingly good at formal competence, their performance on functional competence tasks remains spotty and often requires specialized fine-tuning and/or coupling with external modules. We posit that models that use language in human-like ways would need to master both of these competence types, which, in turn, could require the emergence of mechanisms specialized for formal linguistic competence, distinct from functional competence.

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.2301.06627

Cites

0 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, especially as they increase in size, appear to capture even complex aspects of natural language syntax.

    “one very consistent result in recent years has been that LLMs, especially as they increase in size, appear to capture even complex aspects of natural language syntax [16].”

    From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The section ‘Large language models learn core aspects of human language processing’ reports that LLMs handle complex syntactic phenomena, including long-distance agreement and filler-gap dependencies. ‘The language-thought conflation’ says formal linguistic competence improves with more training data, but does not establish that increasing model size specifically produces this improvement. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • PLMs excel at formal linguistic abilities but have faced challenges in developing functional linguistic abilities.

    “While PLMs excel at formal linguistic abilities, they have faced challenges in developing functional linguistic abilities (Mahowald et al., 2023).”

    From Are Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models just In-Context Learning? (2023) · cites this paper as Mahowald et al., 2023

  • LLMs often struggle to reason reliably and flexibly despite their linguistic competence.

    “Despite their linguistic competence, Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to reason reliably and flexibly.”

    From Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language (2024) · cites this paper as Mahowald 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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 190

  1. A. M. Turing. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59(October):433-60, 1950. Publisher: Oxford University Press.
  2. Y. Chang, X. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Wu, L. Yang, K. Zhu, H. Chen, X. Yi, C. Wang, Y. Wang, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2023.
  3. R. Bommasani, K. Klyman, S. Longpre, S. Kapoor, N. Maslej, B. Xiong, D. Zhang, and P. Liang. The foundation model transparency index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12941, 2023. · arXiv
  4. A. Wang, Y. Pruksachatkun, N. Nangia, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. R. Bowman. SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.
  5. B.-D. Oh and W. Schuler. Why does surprisal from larger transformer-based language models provide a poorer fit to human reading times? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:336-350, 2023.
  6. S. Bubeck, V. Chandrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Kamar, P. Lee, Y. T. Lee, Y. Li, S. Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
  7. J. Weizenbaum. Eliza-a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1):36-45, 1966.
  8. Y. Elazar, N. Kassner, S. Ravfogel, A. Ravichander, E. Hovy, H. Schütze, and Y. Goldberg. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031, 2021.
  9. G. Marcus. The next decade in AI: Four steps towards robust artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06177, 2020. · arXiv
  10. E. M. Bender and A. Koller. Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5185-5198, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. H. Grice. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, pages 41-58. Academic Press, New York, 1975.
  12. H. H. Clark. Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press, 1992.
  13. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  14. G. Mialon, R. Dessì, M. Lomeli, C. Nalmpantis, R. Pasunuru, R. Raileanu, B. Rozière, T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, A. Celikyilmaz, et al. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842, 2023. · arXiv
  15. M. Halle. Phonology in generative grammar. Word, 18(1-3):54-72, 1962.
  16. M. Aronoff and K. Fudeman. What is morphology? John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
  17. D. A. Cruse. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
  18. M. Dalrymple and T. H. King. An amazing four doctoral dissertations. Argumentum, 15(2019), 2019. Publisher: Debreceni Egyetemi Kiado.
  19. C. Keenan. A pleasant three days in Philadelphia: Arguments for a pseudopartitive analysis. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 19(1):11, 2013.
  20. A. E. Goldberg. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press, 2019.
  21. A. Clark. Distributional Learning as a Theory of Language Acquisition. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning (CogACLL), page 29, Gothenburg, Sweden, April 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  22. J. Saffran, R. Aslin, and E. Newport. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294):1926, 1996.
  23. L. R. Gleitman. A human universal: the capacity to learn a language. Modern Philology, 90:S13-S33, 1993. Publisher: University of Chicago Press.
  24. H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge university press, 1996.
  25. E. Fedorenko, P.-J. Hsieh, A. Nieto-Castañón, 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, August 2010.
  26. M. MacSweeney, B. Woll, R. Campbell, P. K. McGuire, A. S. David, S. C. R. Williams, J. Suckling, G. A. Calvert, and M. J. Brammer. Neural systems underlying British Sign Language and audio-visual English processing in native users. Brain, 125(7):1583-1593, July 2002.
  27. T. L. Scott, J. Gallée, and E. Fedorenko. A new fun and robust version of an fMRI localizer for the frontotemporal language system. Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3):167-176, 2017.
  28. L. Menenti, S. M. E. Gierhan, K. Segaert, and P. Hagoort. Shared language: overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychological Science, 22(9):1173-1182, September 2011.
  29. J. Hu, H. Small, H. Kean, A. Takahashi, L. Zekelman, D. Kleinman, E. Ryan, A. Nieto-Castañón, V. Ferreira, and E. Fedorenko. Precision fmri reveals that the language-selective network supports both phrase-structure building and lexical access during language production. Cerebral Cortex, 33(8):4384-4404, 2023.
  30. T. I. Regev, J. Affourtit, X. Chen, A. E. Schipper, L. Bergen, K. Mahowald, and E. Fedorenko. High-level language brain regions are sensitive to sub-lexical regularities. bioRxiv, 2021.
  31. E. Bates, S. M. Wilson, A. P. Saygin, F. Dick, M. I. Sereno, R. T. Knight, and N. F. Dronkers. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5):448-450, May 2003.
  32. S. M. Wilson, D. K. Eriksson, M. Yen, A. T. Demarco, S. M. Schneck, and J. M. Lucanie. Language Mapping in Aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR, 62(11):3937-3946, November 2019.
  33. M. Amalric and S. Dehaene. Origins of the brain networks for advanced mathematics in expert mathematicians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(18):4909-4917, May 2016.
  34. Y. Benn, A. A. Ivanova, O. Clark, Z. Mineroff, C. Seikus, J. S. Silva, R. Varley, and E. Fedorenko. The language network is not engaged in object categorization. Cerebral Cortex, 33(19):10380-10400, 2023.
  35. X. Chen, J. Affourtit, R. Ryskin, T. I. Regev, S. Norman-Haignere, O. Jouravlev, S. Malik-Moraleda, H. Kean, R. Varley, and E. Fedorenko. The human language system, including its inferior frontal component in "Broca's area," does not support music perception. Cerebral Cortex, 33(12):7904-7929, 04 2023.
  36. B. Deen, K. Koldewyn, N. Kanwisher, and R. Saxe. Functional Organization of Social Perception and Cognition in the Superior Temporal Sulcus. Cerebral Cortex, 25(11):4596-4609, November 2015.
  37. M. M. Monti, L. M. Parsons, and D. N. Osherson. Thought beyond language: neural dissociation of algebra and natural language. Psychological Science, 23(8):914-922, August 2012.
  38. A. M. Paunov, I. A. Blank, O. Jouravlev, Z. Mineroff, J. Gallée, and E. Fedorenko. Differential Tracking of Linguistic vs. Mental State Content in Naturalistic Stimuli by Language and Theory of Mind (ToM) Brain Networks. Neurobiology of Language, pages 1-29, June 2022.
  39. E. Fedorenko and R. A. Varley. Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients: Language versus thought. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1):132-153, April 2016.
  40. T. Linzen. What can linguistics and deep learning contribute to each other? Response to Pater. Language, 95(1):e99-e108, 2019. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America.
  41. S. Jain, V. A. Vo, L. Wehbe, and A. G. Huth. Computational language modeling and the promise of in silico experimentation. Neurobiology of Language, pages 1-65, 2023.
  42. M. C. Frank. Openly accessible LLMs can help us to understand human cognition. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-3, 2023.
  43. R. Cao and D. Yamins. Explanatory models in neuroscience: Part 1-taking mechanistic abstraction seriously. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.01490, 2021. · arXiv
  44. M. Baroni. On the proper role of linguistically-oriented deep net analysis in linguistic theorizing. Algebraic structures in natural language, pages 1-16, 2022.
  45. D. Jurafsky and J. H. Martin. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Pearson Prentice Hall, second edition, 2009.
  46. M. Baroni and A. Lenci. Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computa- tional Linguistics, 36(4):673-721, 2010.
  47. K. Erk. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10):635-653, 2012.
  48. D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland. Parallel Distributed Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
  49. J. Elman. Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1):71- 99, 1993.
  50. P. Norvig. Colorless green ideas learn furiously: Chomsky and the two cultures of statistical learning. Significance, 9(4):30-33, 2012.
  51. S. Pinker and A. Prince. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28(1-2):73-193, 1988. Publisher: Elsevier.
  52. M. B. Everaert, M. A. Huybregts, N. Chomsky, R. C. Berwick, and J. J. Bolhuis. Structures, not strings: linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12):729-743, 2015.
  53. R. Sennrich, B. Haddow, and A. Birch. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In K. Erk and N. A. Smith, editors, Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany, August 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  54. S. Bowman. The dangers of underclaiming: Reasons for caution when reporting how NLP systems fail. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7484-7499, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  55. I. Sutskever, J. Martens, and G. E. Hinton. Generating text with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11), pages 1017-1024, 2011.
  56. A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1(8), 2019.
  57. T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020.
  58. A. Lenci. Understanding natural language understanding systems. a critical analysis. Sistemi Intelligenti, 35(2):277-302, 2023.
  59. M. Van Schijndel and T. Linzen. Single-stage prediction models do not explain the magnitude of syntactic disambiguation difficulty. Cognitive Science, 45(6):e12988, 2021.
  60. R. T. McCoy, P. Smolensky, T. Linzen, J. Gao, and A. Celikyilmaz. How much do language models copy from their training data? evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:652-670, 2023.
  61. G. Chronis and K. Erk. When is a bishop not like a rook? when it's like a rabbi! multi-prototype BERT embeddings for estimating semantic relationships. In R. Fernández and T. Linzen, editors, Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 227-244, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  62. A. Wang, A. Singh, J. Michael, F. Hill, O. Levy, and S. R. Bowman. GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, 2018.
  63. A. Warstadt, A. Parrish, H. Liu, A. Mohananey, W. Peng, S.-F. Wang, and S. R. Bowman. BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:377-392, 2020.
  64. D. Samuel. Mean BERTs make erratic language teachers: the effectiveness of latent bootstrapping in low- resource settings. In A. Warstadt, A. Mueller, L. Choshen, E. Wilcox, C. Zhuang, J. Ciro, R. Mosquera, B. Paranjabe, A. Williams, T. Linzen, and R. Cotterell, editors, Proceedings of the BabyLM Challenge at the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 221-237, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  65. A. Warstadt, A. Mueller, L. Choshen, E. Wilcox, C. Zhuang, J. Ciro, R. Mosquera, B. Paranjabe, A. Williams, T. Linzen, and R. Cotterell. Findings of the BabyLM challenge: Sample-efficient pretraining on developmentally plausible corpora. In A. Warstadt, A. Mueller, L. Choshen, E. Wilcox, C. Zhuang, J. Ciro, R. Mosquera, B. Paranjabe, A. Williams, T. Linzen, and R. Cotterell, editors, Proceedings of the BabyLM Challenge at the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 1-34, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  66. J. Gauthier, J. Hu, E. Wilcox, P. Qian, and R. Levy. SyntaxGym: An Online Platform for Targeted Evaluation of Language Models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 70-76, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  67. T. Linzen, E. Dupoux, and Y. Goldberg. Assessing the ability of LSTMs to learn syntax-sensitive dependencies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:521-535, 2016.
  68. K. Gulordava, P. Bojanowski, E. Grave, T. Linzen, and M. Baroni. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. In M. Walker, H. Ji, and A. Stent, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1195-1205, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  69. T. Linzen and M. Baroni. Syntactic structure from deep learning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7:195-212, 2021.
  70. C. Yu, R. Sie, N. Tedeschi, and L. Bergen. Word frequency does not predict grammatical knowledge in language models. In B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y. He, and Y. Liu, editors, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4040-4054, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  71. E. G. Wilcox, R. Futrell, and R. Levy. Using computational models to test syntactic learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, pages 1-88, 2022.
  72. J. Hewitt and C. D. Manning. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4129-4138, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  73. S. Ravfogel, G. Prasad, T. Linzen, and Y. Goldberg. Counterfactual interventions reveal the causal effect of relative clause representations on agreement prediction. In A. Bisazza and O. Abend, editors, Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 194-209, Online, November 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  74. A. Mueller, Y. Xia, and T. Linzen. Causal analysis of syntactic agreement neurons in multilingual language models. In A. Fokkens and V. Srikumar, editors, Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 95-109, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid), December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  75. Y. Lakretz, G. Kruszewski, T. Desbordes, D. Hupkes, S. Dehaene, and M. Baroni. The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language models. In J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 11-20, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  76. B. Ambridge. Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40(5-6):509-559, 2020.
  77. N. Kim and P. Smolensky. Testing for grammatical category abstraction in neural language models. In A. Ettinger, E. Pavlick, and B. Prickett, editors, Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2021, pages 467-470, Online, February 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  78. N. Kim, T. Linzen, and P. Smolensky. Uncontrolled lexical exposure leads to overestimation of compositional generalization in pretrained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10769, 2022. · arXiv
  79. K. Misra, J. Rayz, and A. Ettinger. COMPS: Conceptual minimal pair sentences for testing robust property knowledge and its inheritance in pre-trained language models. In A. Vlachos and I. Augenstein, editors, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2928-2949, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  80. A. Ettinger, A. Elgohary, and P. Resnik. Probing for semantic evidence of composition by means of simple classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Evaluating Vector-Space Representations for NLP, pages 134-139, Berlin, Germany, August 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  81. Y. Belinkov. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207- 219, March 2022.
  82. I. Tenney, D. Das, and E. Pavlick. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. In A. Korhonen, D. Traum, and L. Màrquez, editors, Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4593-4601, Florence, Italy, July 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  83. J. Niu, W. Lu, and G. Penn. Does BERT rediscover a classical NLP pipeline? In N. Calzolari, C.-R. Huang, H. Kim, J. Pustejovsky, L. Wanner, K.-S. Choi, P.-M. Ryu, H.-H. Chen, L. Donatelli, H. Ji, S. Kurohashi, P. Paggio, N. Xue, S. Kim, Y. Hahm, Z. He, T. K. Lee, E. Santus, F. Bond, and S.-H. Na, editors, Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3143-3153, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 2022. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
  84. M. C. MacDonald, N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4):676, 1994. Publisher: American Psychological Association.
  85. E. Bates and B. MacWhinney. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates, editors, The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, pages 3-73. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  86. I. Dasgupta, A. K. Lampinen, S. C. Chan, A. Creswell, D. Kumaran, J. L. McClelland, and F. Hill. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07051, 2022. · arXiv
  87. A. K. Lampinen. Can language models handle recursively nested grammatical structures? a case study on comparing models and humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15303, 2022. · arXiv
  88. Y. Lakretz, T. Desbordes, D. Hupkes, and S. Dehaene. Causal Transformers Perform Below Chance on Recursive Nested Constructions, Unlike Humans, October 2021. arXiv:2110.07240 [cs]. · arXiv
  89. L. Weissweiler, T. He, N. Otani, D. R. Mortensen, L. Levin, and H. Schütze. Construction grammar provides unique insight into neural language models. In C. Bonial and H. Tayyar Madabushi, editors, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Construction Grammars and NLP (CxGs+NLP, GURT/SyntaxFest 2023), pages 85-95, Washington, D.C., March 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  90. Y.-H. Tseng, C.-F. Shih, P.-E. Chen, H.-Y. Chou, M.-C. Ku, and S.-K. Hsieh. CxLM: A construction and context-aware language model. In N. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, J. Odijk, and S. Piperidis, editors, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 6361-6369, Marseille, France, June 2022. European Language Resources Association.
  91. H. Tayyar Madabushi, L. Romain, D. Divjak, and P. Milin. CxGBERT: BERT meets construction grammar. In D. Scott, N. Bel, and C. Zong, editors, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguis- tics, pages 4020-4032, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 2020. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
  92. K. Mahowald. A discerning several thousand judgments: GPT-3 rates the article + adjective + numeral + noun construction. In A. Vlachos and I. Augenstein, editors, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 265-273, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  93. L. Weissweiler, V. Hofmann, A. Köksal, and H. Schütze. The better your syntax, the better your semantics? probing pretrained language models for the English comparative correlative. In Y. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, and Y. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10859-10882, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  94. E. Fedorenko, T. L. Scott, P. Brunner, W. G. Coon, B. Pritchett, G. Schalk, and N. Kanwisher. Neural correlate of the construction of sentence meaning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(41):E6256-E6262, October 2016. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  95. C. Pallier, A.-D. Devauchelle, and S. Dehaene. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(6):2522-2527, February 2011. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  96. R. Law and L. Pylkkänen. Lists with and without syntax: A new approach to measuring the neural processing of syntax. Journal of Neuroscience, January 2021. Publisher: Society for Neuroscience Section: Research Articles.
  97. M. Heilbron, K. Armeni, J.-M. Schoffelen, P. Hagoort, and F. P. de Lange. A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(32):e2201968119, August 2022. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  98. A. J. Reddy and L. Wehbe. Can fMRI reveal the representation of syntactic structure in the brain? In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. S. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 9843-9856.
  99. J. Y. Huang, K.-H. Huang, and K.-W. Chang. Disentangling semantics and syntax in sentence embeddings with pre-trained language models. In K. Toutanova, A. Rumshisky, L. Zettlemoyer, D. Hakkani-Tur, I. Beltagy, S. Bethard, R. Cotterell, T. Chakraborty, and Y. Zhou, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1372-1379, Online, June 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  100. C. Caucheteux and J.-R. King. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications Biology, 5(1):1-10, February 2022. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  101. A. Goldstein, Z. Zada, E. Buchnik, M. Schain, A. Price, B. Aubrey, S. A. Nastase, A. Feder, D. Emanuel, A. Cohen, A. Jansen, H. Gazula, G. Choe, A. Rao, C. Kim, C. Casto, L. Fanda, W. Doyle, D. Friedman, P. Dugan, L. Melloni, R. Reichart, S. Devore, A. Flinker, L. Hasenfratz, O. Levy, A. Hassidim, M. Brenner, Y. Matias, K. A. Norman, O. Devinsky, and U. Hasson. Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nature Neuroscience, 25(3):369-380, March 2022. Number: 3 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  102. M. Schrimpf, I. A. Blank, G. Tuckute, C. Kauf, E. A. Hosseini, N. Kanwisher, J. B. Tenenbaum, and E. Fedorenko. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(45), November 2021. Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Biological Sciences.
  103. E. J. Michaud, Z. Liu, U. Girit, and M. Tegmark. The quantization model of neural scaling. Proceedings of the NeurIPS Conference, 2023.
  104. S. T. Piantadosi. Modern language models refute Chomsky's approach to language. Lingbuzz Preprint, lingbuzz/007180, 2023.
  105. N. Chomsky. Linguistics and cognitive science: problems and mysteries. In The Chomskyan Turn. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1991.
  106. T. McCoy, E. Pavlick, and T. Linzen. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In A. Korhonen, D. Traum, and L. Màrquez, editors, Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448, Florence, Italy, July 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  107. R. T. McCoy, S. Yao, D. Friedman, M. Hardy, and T. L. Griffiths. Embers of autoregression: Understanding large language models through the problem they are trained to solve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13638, 2023. · arXiv
  108. N. Kassner and H. Schütze. Negated and misprimed probes for pretrained language models: Birds can talk, but cannot fly. In D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7811-7818, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  109. A. Warstadt and S. R. Bowman. What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition. Algebraic Structures in Natural Language, pages 17-60, 2022.
  110. In K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, and X. Wan, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5831-5837, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  111. R. T. McCoy, R. Frank, and T. Linzen. Does syntax need to grow on trees? sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140, 2020.
  112. A. Yedetore, T. Linzen, R. Frank, and R. T. McCoy. How poor is the stimulus? evaluating hierarchical generalization in neural networks trained on child-directed speech. In A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9370-9393, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  113. L. Georges Gabriel Charpentier and D. Samuel. Not all layers are equally as important: Every layer counts BERT. In A. Warstadt, A. Mueller, L. Choshen, E. Wilcox, C. Zhuang, J. Ciro, R. Mosquera, B. Paranjabe, A. Williams, T. Linzen, and R. Cotterell, editors, Proceedings of the BabyLM Challenge at the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 238-252, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  114. E. A. Hosseini, M. Schrimpf, Y. Zhang, S. R. Bowman, N. Zaslavsky, and E. Fedorenko. Artificial neural network language models predict human brain responses to language even after a developmentally realistic amount of training. Neurobiology of Language, pages 1-50, 01 2024.
  115. D. Blasi, A. Anastasopoulos, and G. Neubig. Systematic inequalities in language technology performance across the world's languages. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5486-5505, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  116. S. J. Mielke, R. Cotterell, K. Gorman, B. Roark, and J. Eisner. What kind of language is hard to language-model? In A. Korhonen, D. Traum, and L. Màrquez, editors, Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4975-4989, Florence, Italy, July 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  117. L. Martin, B. Muller, P. J. Ortiz Suárez, Y. Dupont, L. Romary, É. de la Clergerie, D. Seddah, and B. Sagot. CamemBERT: a tasty French language model. In D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7203-7219, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  118. Z. Wang, K. K, S. Mayhew, and D. Roth. Extending multilingual BERT to low-resource languages. In T. Cohn, Y. He, and Y. Liu, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 2649-2656, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  119. K. Tirumala, A. Markosyan, L. Zettlemoyer, and A. Aghajanyan. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:38274- 38290, 2022.
  120. D. C. Dennett. The role of language in intelligence. In What is Intelligence? The Darwin College Lectures, ed. Jean Khalfa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994.
  121. P. Carruthers. The cognitive functions of language. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(6):657-674; discussion 674-725, December 2002.
  122. J. Duncan. The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behaviour. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(4):172-179, April 2010.
  123. J. Fischer, J. G. Mikhael, J. B. Tenenbaum, and N. Kanwisher. Functional neuroanatomy of intuitive physical inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(34):E5072-E5081, August 2016.
  124. A. Woolgar, A. Parr, R. Cusack, R. Thompson, I. Nimmo-Smith, T. Torralva, M. Roca, N. Antoun, F. Manes, and J. Duncan. Fluid intelligence loss linked to restricted regions of damage within frontal and parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(33):14899-14902, August 2010. ISBN: 9781007928108 Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Section: Biological Sciences.
  125. A. Woolgar, J. Duncan, F. Manes, and E. Fedorenko. Fluid intelligence is supported by the multiple-demand system not the language system. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3):200-204, 2018.
  126. N. Dziri, X. Lu, M. Sclar, X. L. Li, L. Jiang, B. Y. Lin, S. Welleck, P. West, C. Bhagavatula, R. L. Bras, J. D. Hwang, S. Sanyal, X. Ren, A. Ettinger, Z. Harchaoui, and Y. Choi. Faith and fate: Limits of transformers on compositionality. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
  127. K. Valmeekam, A. Olmo, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati. Large language models still can't plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change). In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2022.
  128. Z. Wu, L. Qiu, A. Ross, E. Akyürek, B. Chen, B. Wang, N. Kim, J. Andreas, and Y. Kim. Reasoning or reciting? exploring the capabilities and limitations of language models through counterfactual tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02477, 2023. · arXiv
  129. H. Zhang, L. H. Li, T. Meng, K.-W. Chang, and G. Van den Broeck. On the paradox of learning to reason from data. In E. Elkind, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, pages 3365-3373. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 8 2023. Main Track.
  130. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V. Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  131. L. Wong, G. Grand, A. K. Lew, N. D. Goodman, V. K. Mansinghka, J. Andreas, and J. B. Tenenbaum. From word models to world models: Translating from natural language to the probabilistic language of thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12672, 2023. · arXiv
  132. I. Yildirim and L. Paul. From task structures to world models: What do LLMs know? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04276, 2023. · arXiv
  133. A. A. Ivanova, Z. Mineroff, V. Zimmerer, N. Kanwisher, R. Varley, and E. Fedorenko. The Language Network is Recruited but Not Required for Nonverbal Event Semantics. Neurobiology of Language, pages 1-26, January 2021. Publisher: MIT Press.
  134. K. Patterson, P. J. Nestor, and T. T. Rogers. Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 8(12):976-987, December 2007.
  135. G. Grand, I. A. Blank, F. Pereira, and E. Fedorenko. Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(7):975-987, 2022.
  136. F. Petroni, T. Rocktäschel, S. Riedel, P. Lewis, A. Bakhtin, Y. Wu, and A. Miller. Language Models as Knowledge Bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  137. N. Liu, T. Zhang, and P. Liang. Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines. In H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7001-7025, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  138. M. Sclar, Y. Choi, Y. Tsvetkov, and A. Suhr. Quantifying language models' sensitivity to spurious features in prompt design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11324, 2023. · arXiv
  139. J. Gordon and B. Van Durme. Reporting bias and knowledge acquisition. In Proceedings of the 2013 workshop on Automated knowledge base construction, pages 25-30, 2013.
  140. X. Liu, D. Yin, Y. Feng, and D. Zhao. Things not written in text: Exploring spatial commonsense from visual signals. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2365-2376, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  141. Y. Kim, J. Yoon, S. Ye, S. J. Hwang, and S.-Y. Yun. Carpe diem: On the evaluation of world knowledge in lifelong language models. In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Synthetic Data Generation with Generative AI, 2023.
  142. K. Meng, D. Bau, A. Andonian, and Y. Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in gpt. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17359-17372, 2022.
  143. S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, J. Hoffmann, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, K. Millican, G. B. Van Den Driessche, J.-B. Lespiau, B. Damoc, A. Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR, 2022.
  144. R. Cohen, M. Geva, J. Berant, and A. Globerson. Crawling the internal knowledge-base of language models. In A. Vlachos and I. Augenstein, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1856-1869, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  145. E. Chersoni, E. Santus, L. Pannitto, A. Lenci, P. Blache, and C.-R. Huang. A structured distributional model of sentence meaning and processing. Natural Language Engineering, 25(4):483-502, 2019.
  146. T. A. Van Dijk and W. Kintsch. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press: New York, 1983.
  147. Y. Lerner, C. J. Honey, L. J. Silbert, and U. Hasson. Topographic Mapping of a Hierarchy of Temporal Receptive Windows Using a Narrated Story. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(8):2906-2915, February 2011.
  148. R. L. Buckner and L. M. DiNicola. The brain's default network: Updated anatomy, physiology and evolving insights. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(10):593-608, 2019. Place: United Kingdom Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  149. C. Baldassano, J. Chen, A. Zadbood, J. W. Pillow, U. Hasson, and K. A. Norman. Discovering Event Structure in Continuous Narrative Perception and Memory. Neuron, 95(3):709-721.e5, August 2017.
  150. Q. Ruan, M. Ostendorff, and G. Rehm. HiStruct+: Improving extractive text summarization with hierarchical structure information. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1292-1308, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  151. N. Kim and S. Schuster. Entity tracking in language models. In A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3835-3855, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  152. S. Schuster and T. Linzen. When a sentence does not introduce a discourse entity, transformer-based models still sometimes refer to it. In M. Carpuat, M.-C. de Marneffe, and I. V. Meza Ruiz, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 969-982, Seattle, United States, July 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  153. S. Levinson. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000.
  154. R. Saxe. Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2):235-239, April 2006.
  155. A. Gopnik and H. M. Wellman. Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind and Language, 7(1-2):145-71, 1992.
  156. R. Saxe and N. Kanwisher. People thinking about thinking people. The role of the temporo-parietal junction in "theory of mind". NeuroImage, 19(4):1835-1842, August 2003.
  157. E. C. Ferstl and D. Y. von Cramon. What Does the Frontomedian Cortex Contribute to Language Processing: Coherence or Theory of Mind? NeuroImage, 17(3):1599-1612, November 2002.
  158. R. Saxe and L. J. Powell. It's the thought that counts: specific brain regions for one component of theory of mind. Psychological Science, 17(8):692-699, August 2006.
  159. P. Hagoort and S. C. Levinson. Neuropragmatics. In The cognitive neurosciences, 5th ed, pages 667-674.
  160. J. Hu, S. Floyd, O. Jouravlev, E. Fedorenko, and E. Gibson. A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language models. In A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4194-4213, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  161. M. Kosinski. Theory of mind may have spontaneously emerged in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02083, 2023. · arXiv
  162. T. Ullman. Large language models fail on trivial alterations to theory-of-mind tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08399, 2023. · arXiv
  163. N. Shapira, M. Levy, S. H. Alavi, X. Zhou, Y. Choi, Y. Goldberg, M. Sap, and V. Shwartz. Clever hans or neural theory of mind? stress testing social reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14763, 2023. · arXiv
  164. M. Sap, R. Le Bras, D. Fried, and Y. Choi. Neural theory-of-mind? on the limits of social intelligence in large LMs. In Y. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, and Y. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3762-3780, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  165. S. Trott, C. Jones, T. Chang, J. Michaelov, and B. Bergen. Do large language models know what humans know? Cognitive Science, 47(7):e13309, 2023.
  166. K. Gandhi, J.-P. Fränken, T. Gerstenberg, and N. Goodman. Understanding social reasoning in language models with language models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023.
  167. M. Sclar, S. Kumar, P. West, A. Suhr, Y. Choi, and Y. Tsvetkov. Minding language models' (lack of) theory of mind: A plug-and-play multi-character belief tracker. In A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13960-13980, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  168. S. R. Waxman. Early word-learning and conceptual development: Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, pages 102-126, 2002.
  169. J. E. Pyers and A. Senghas. Language promotes false-belief understanding: Evidence from learners of a new sign language. Psychological science, 20(7):805-812, 2009.
  170. B. Pitt, E. Gibson, and S. T. Piantadosi. Exact number concepts are limited to the verbal count range. Psycholog- ical Science, 33(3):371-381, 2022.
  171. L. Bottou and P. Gallinari. A framework for the cooperation of learning algorithms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 3, 1990.
  172. Q. Liu, D. Yogatama, and P. Blunsom. Relational Memory-Augmented Language Models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:555-572, May 2022.
  173. J. Mao, C. Gan, P. Kohli, J. B. Tenenbaum, and J. Wu. The neuro-symbolic concept learner: Interpreting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019.
  174. D. Hudson and C. D. Manning. Learning by abstraction: The neural state machine. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5901-5914, 2019.
  175. T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, R. Dessì, R. Raileanu, M. Lomeli, L. Zettlemoyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761, 2023. · arXiv
  176. K. Cobbe, V. Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. · arXiv
  177. B. Liu, Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Biswas, and P. Stone. LLM+P: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477, 2023. · arXiv
  178. G. R. Yang, M. R. Joglekar, H. F. Song, W. T. Newsome, and X.-J. Wang. Task representations in neural networks trained to perform many cognitive tasks. Nature Neuroscience, 22(2):297-306, February 2019. Number: 2 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  179. C. D. Manning, K. Clark, J. Hewitt, U. Khandelwal, and O. Levy. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30046-30054, December 2020.
  180. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, \. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is All you Need. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, pages 5998-6008.
  181. J. Vig and Y. Belinkov. Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model. In T. Linzen, G. Chrupała, Y. Belinkov, and D. Hupkes, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63-76, Florence, Italy, August 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  182. A. Goyal, A. Didolkar, A. Lamb, K. Badola, N. R. Ke, N. Rahaman, J. Binas, C. Blundell, M. Mozer, and Y. Bengio. Coordination among neural modules through a shared global workspace. Proceedings of ICLR, 2022.
  183. S. Kudugunta, Y. Huang, A. Bapna, M. Krikun, D. Lepikhin, M.-T. Luong, and O. Firat. Beyond distillation: Task-level mixture-of-experts for efficient inference. In M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L. Specia, and S. W.-t. Yih, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3577-3599, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, November 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  184. Y. Zhou, T. Lei, H. Liu, N. Du, Y. Huang, V. Zhao, A. M. Dai, Q. V. Le, J. Laudon, et al. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:7103-7114, 2022.
  185. K. Sakaguchi, R. Le Bras, C. Bhagavatula, and Y. Choi. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8732-8740, 2020.
  186. Y. Elazar, H. Zhang, Y. Goldberg, and D. Roth. Back to square one: Artifact detection, training and commonsense disentanglement in the Winograd schema. In M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L. Specia, and S. W.-t. Yih, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10486-10500, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, November 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  187. H. Lederman and K. Mahowald. Are language models more like libraries or like librarians? Bibliotechnism, the Novel Reference Problem, and the attitudes of LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04854, 2024. · arXiv
  188. M. Mitchell and D. C. Krakauer. The debate over understanding in AI's large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13):e2215907120, 2023.
  189. E. Pavlick. Symbols and grounding in large language models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 381(2251):20220041, 2023.
  190. D. C. Mollo and R. Millière. The vector grounding problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01481, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2301.06627
arXiv
2301.06627
OpenAlex
W4317463334
Cited by
80
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 1 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2104995)
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • National Institutes of Health (DC016950)
  • Simons Center for the Social Brain, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC016950, R01DC016607)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U01NS121471)
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
large language models, language and thought, language comprehension, linguistic rules, neural mechanisms of language, fine-tuning, external module

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