Controlled Evaluation of Syntactic Knowledge in Multilingual Language Models
Abstract
Language models (LMs) are capable of acquiring elements of human-like syntactic knowledge. Targeted syntactic evaluation tests have been employed to measure how well they form generalizations about syntactic phenomena in high-resource languages such as English. However, we still lack a thorough understanding of LMs’ capacity for syntactic generalizations in low-resource languages, which are responsible for much of the diversity of syntactic patterns worldwide. In this study, we develop targeted syntactic evaluation tests for three low-resource languages (Basque, Hindi, and Swahili) and use them to evaluate five families of open-access multilingual Transformer LMs. We find that some syntactic tasks prove relatively easy for LMs while others (agreement in sentences containing indirect objects in Basque, agreement across a prepositional phrase in Swahili) are challenging. We additionally uncover issues with publicly available Transformers, including a bias toward the habitual aspect in Hindi in multilingual BERT and underperformance compared to similar-sized models in XGLM
Study specs
- Authors
- Daria Kryvosheieva
- Institution
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Discipline
- Natural Language Processing
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.