REVIEW 2 cited by
Can neural networks acquire a structural bias from raw linguistic data?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
We evaluate whether BERT, a widely used neural network for sentence processing, acquires an inductive bias towards forming structural generalizations through pretraining on raw data. We conduct four experiments testing its preference for structural vs. linear generalizations in different structure-dependent phenomena. We find that BERT makes a structural generalization in 3 out of 4 empirical domains---subject-auxiliary inversion, reflexive binding, and verb tense detection in embedded clauses---but makes a linear generalization when tested on NPI licensing. We argue that these results are the strongest evidence so far from artificial learners supporting the proposition that a structural bias can be acquired from raw data. If this conclusion is correct, it is tentative evidence that some linguistic universals can be acquired by learners without innate biases. However, the precise implications for human language acquisition are unclear, as humans learn language from significantly less data than BERT.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Tree Transformers are an Ineffective Model of Syntactic Constituency
Tree Transformers induce constituent structures that diverge from linguistic expectations and provide only marginal gains over standard BERT on hierarchy-sensitive agreement tasks.
-
Language Models Generalize to Human-like Word Order Preferences
LMs trained on corpora that never show multi-modifier noun phrases still prefer English's scope-homomorphic modifier order, and noun-modifier association strength does not explain this preference.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.