Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Learning from Impairment: Leveraging Insights from Clinical Linguistics in Language Modelling Research

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Clinical complexity hierarchies from aphasia treatment can serve as benchmarks and training signals for language models.

desk verdict Novel cross-disciplinary proposal with an honest limitations section, but the curriculum recommendation contradicts the CATE evidence it relies on. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15785 v1 pith:CGNG7EWM submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CL

Dominique Brunato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords aphasiatreatmentlinguisticcomplexitysyntactichierarchylanguagemodelevaluationcurriculumlearningagrammatismaccountofefficacypositionpaper
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that speech-language pathology, especially aphasia treatment, is an untapped source of complexity metrics for language models. It claims that clinical protocols have already established reliable orderings of syntactic difficulty, such as the CATE ordering of object relative clauses, object clefts, and object wh-questions. Those orderings could serve two purposes: building evaluation suites that test models on graded versions of one phenomenon, and shaping training curricula that present structures from simpler to harder or, following the CATE result, from harder to simpler. If the transfer holds, models could become more data-efficient and more linguistically robust.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the clinical complexity hierarchy, most concretely the one from the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy: object relative clauses, object clefts, and object wh-questions ordered from most to least complex, based on syntactic movement operations and parse-tree depth. The paper treats this ordering, together with the staged levels of Mapping Therapy and the eleven-step difficulty ordering of the Syntax Stimulation Program, as a cognitively grounded metric of sentence difficulty. That metric is what carries the argument from aphasia rehabilitation to language model evaluation and curriculum design.

What would settle it

Train small language models on CATE constructions in two orders, hardest-first and easiest-first, then test on untrained members of the triple; if hardest-first training does not improve accuracy on easier untrained structures more than the reverse order, the complexity-transfer claim is unsupported. Equivalently, if model error rates on object wh-questions, object clefts, and object relatives do not monotonically increase across the proposed hierarchy, the metric does not transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central proposal is that clinically validated hierarchies of syntactic complexity, developed to rehabilitate sentence processing in agrammatic aphasia, can be imported into language modelling research. It identifies three treatment frameworks as evidence: Mapping Therapy, which trains thematic-role mapping in staged levels; Treatment of Underlying Forms, whose Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (CATE) predicts that training the hardest construction generalizes to easier ones; and the Syntax Stimulation Program, which orders eleven sentence types by difficulty. The paper argues these hierarchies give a principled way to test whether language models are sensitive to intra-phenomenon complexity, and to order training data or design prompts so that models learn and generalize complex syntax more efficiently. It is a proposal rather than an experimental study; the paper states that it offers no extensive empirical comparison with other training strategies or evaluation settings.

Load-bearing premise

The proposal assumes that the complexity orderings observed in aphasia patients are also the complexity orderings faced by language models, with no experimental evidence for that transfer in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Benchmarks can test language models on the same syntactic phenomenon at multiple complexity levels, such as wh-movement in object relatives, clefts, and wh-questions, instead of only binary grammaticality contrasts.
  • Training data can be ranked by clinically validated complexity to create curricula, potentially improving generalization to untrained constructions and reducing the amount of data needed.
  • Clinical tasks such as thematic-role identification and sentence-structure movement can inspire new pretraining objectives or targeted prompts for distillation.
  • The CATE direction suggests a harder-first training order may generalize better than a simple-to-complex order, offering an alternative to acquisition-inspired curricula.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The proposal implies a concrete empirical program: generate synthetic minimal sets of CATE triples, train small models on each member, and measure whether accuracy transfers down the hierarchy as predicted.
  • Editorial inference: If the transfer holds, the same idea could be applied to other clinical complexity orderings beyond syntax, for instance in morphology or sentence comprehension, but the paper itself restricts the claim to syntax.
  • Editorial inference: A model that ranks object wh-questions as harder than object relatives would falsify the assumption that the clinical hierarchy maps onto language model behavior, a cheap check before adopting CATE as a curriculum signal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that aphasiology treatment protocols can inform language modeling research. It reviews three linguistically grounded rehabilitation frameworks—Mapping Therapy, Treatment of Underlying Forms (TUF) with the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (CATE), and the Syntax Stimulation Program—and proposes that the complexity orderings embedded in these protocols can serve two purposes: evaluating LMs' syntactic competence (Section 4.1) and designing human-inspired learning strategies such as curriculum learning, auxiliary training objectives, and targeted prompts (Section 4.2). The paper explicitly states that it offers no empirical validation and frames itself as an opinion paper.

Significance. The paper offers a genuinely cross-disciplinary proposal: importing structured complexity hierarchies from clinical aphasiology into NLP evaluation and training. Its strengths are a clear, well-grounded review of the clinical literature and a transparent statement of its own limitations. If the transferability assumption were supported, the proposed hierarchy-based evaluation benchmarks would be a novel complement to existing minimal-pair diagnostics such as BLiMP. However, the central proposal is unvalidated, and the curriculum direction recommended in Section 4.2 conflicts with the CATE evidence cited in Section 3.2. These are load-bearing issues that a revision must resolve before the proposal can serve as a usable research program.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2 vs. §3.2] The curriculum proposal in Section 4.2 says LMs should learn 'progressively from simpler to more complex structures' and that prompts should 'begin with simpler forms and gradually introduce more complex sentence constructions.' This is the opposite direction from the CATE finding reported in Section 3.2, where training complex structures first generalizes to simpler structures. The paper disclaims any claim about CATE's clinical effectiveness and says it uses CATE only to establish a static ordering, but then the simple-to-complex curriculum is not an application of the CATE insight. Please either adopt the complex-to-simple order as a falsifiable hypothesis for LMs, or motivate the simple-to-complex order from independent developmental evidence and explicitly state that it does not follow from CATE.
  2. [§4.1] The proposed evaluation framework assumes that clinical complexity hierarchies transfer to LMs, but no validation protocol is offered. Concretely, the claim that LMs should be tested with stimuli arranged by CATE's OR > OC > WH ordering requires prior evidence that LMs are actually more sensitive to object relatives than to object clefts and object wh-questions. Without such data, the proposed benchmark is merely an untested ordinal scale. Please specify how the hierarchy would be validated in models—for example, through acceptability judgments, surprisal measures, or downstream reasoning accuracy across the three constructions—and state a falsifiable prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B] In example (3b), 'the waiter covered. _.' contains an erroneous period before the gap; it should read 'covered _.'
  2. [§1] The paper alternates between 'deep neural networks', 'LMs', and 'LLMs' without specifying whether the proposals target all language models or only autoregressive LLMs; please define the intended model class.
  3. [§3.3] The SSP list includes 'Future' as a sentence type; please clarify whether this means future-tense declarative sentences or another construction.
  4. [§1, footnote 1] The sentence 'Interested readers can referred to...' contains a grammatical error and should read 'can refer to.'
  5. [§4.2] The descriptions of 'Linguistic Learning Objectives' and 'Targeted Prompts' are brief and lack concrete example prompts or objective definitions; adding one illustrative prompt template and one possible auxiliary objective would make these proposals more actionable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims rest on external clinical sources and explicitly disclaim the clinical effectiveness of the cited treatment protocols.

full rationale

This is a position paper with no numerical derivation, fitted parameters, or empirical predictions. The central proposal—using aphasia treatment complexity hierarchies to inform LM evaluation and curriculum learning—relies on external clinical literature (Rochon et al., 2005; Thompson et al., 2003; Helm-Estabrooks, 1981), not on the author's own prior results. The only self-citation is Brunato et al. (2018) in Section 2, used to support the general observation that defining linguistic complexity is challenging; this is contextual background and is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly states that it does not aim to argue for CATE's clinical effectiveness and instead uses CATE only to support the existence of a static complexity ordering among object relative clauses, object clefts, and object wh-questions. The skeptical concern that the proposed simple-to-complex curriculum conflicts with CATE's complex-to-simple generalization direction is a coherence or correctness issue, not a circularity issue: no quoted step shows that a claimed output is equivalent to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the paper makes no empirical claim that could reduce to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests entirely on the transferability of clinical findings to LMs, an assumption not validated by any experiment or external evidence. The paper introduces no free parameters and no new entities. All axioms are domain assumptions about comparability between human aphasia recovery and LM learning.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The complexity hierarchies used in aphasia treatment, e.g., CATE's ordering of object relatives, object clefts, and object wh-questions, reflect true linguistic complexity.
    The paper assumes these hierarchies are valid and can be exported to LM evaluation. Invoked in Section 3.2 when describing CATE.
  • domain assumption Generalization patterns in aphasia treatment (training complex structures generalizes to simpler ones) are a sound basis for curriculum learning in LMs.
    The paper proposes a SLP-informed curriculum based on these patterns in Section 4.2 without evidence that the same patterns hold in LMs.
  • domain assumption LMs are subject to similar complexity constraints as human language processing, so human-inspired complexity metrics apply to LMs.
    The paper assumes that complexity phenomena that affect human aphasia patients also matter for LMs, stated implicitly in Section 1 and used in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning from Impairment: Leveraging Insights from Clinical Linguistics in Language Modelling Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGNG7EWM

@misc{pith2026241215785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning from Impairment: Leveraging Insights from Clinical Linguistics in Language Modelling Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGNG7EWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15785}
}
read the original abstract

This position paper investigates the potential of integrating insights from language impairment research and its clinical treatment to develop human-inspired learning strategies and evaluation frameworks for language models (LMs). We inspect the theoretical underpinnings underlying some influential linguistically motivated training approaches derived from neurolinguistics and, particularly, aphasiology, aimed at enhancing the recovery and generalization of linguistic skills in aphasia treatment, with a primary focus on those targeting the syntactic domain. We highlight how these insights can inform the design of rigorous assessments for LMs, specifically in their handling of complex syntactic phenomena, as well as their implications for developing human-like learning strategies, aligning with efforts to create more sustainable and cognitively plausible natural language processing (NLP) models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ameeta Agrawal, Suresh Singh, Lauren Schneider, and Michael Samuels. 2021. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:237553761 On the role of corpus ordering in language modeling . In SUSTAINLP

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Sergey Avrutin. 2001. Linguistics and agrammatism. Glot international, 5(3):1--11

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Marco Baroni. 2022. On the proper role of linguistically oriented deep net analysis in linguistic theorising. In Algebraic structures in natural language, pages 1--16. CRC Press

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Roelien Bastiaanse, Gosse Bouma, and Wendy Post. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.004 Linguistic complexity and frequency in agrammatic speech production . Brain and Language, 109(1):18--28

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.12.004 2009

  5. [5]

    Yonatan Belinkov and James Glass. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00254 Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Survey . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:49--72

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00254 2019

  6. [6]

    Yoshua Bengio, J \'e r \^o me Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Jason Weston. 2009. Curriculum learning. In Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, pages 41--48

    2009

  7. [7]

    Arshavir Blackwell and Elizabeth Bates. 1995. Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2):228--257

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Dominique Brunato, Lorenzo De Mattei, Felice Dell ' Orletta, Benedetta Iavarone, and Giulia Venturi. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1289 Is this sentence difficult? do you agree? In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2690--2699, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1289 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Alfonso Caramazza and Edgar B. Zurif. 1978. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:60366444 Language acquisition and language breakdown : parallels and divergencies

    1978

  2. [10]

    Ernie Chang, Hui - Syuan Yeh, and Vera Demberg. 2021. Does the order of training samples matter? improving neural data-to-text generation with curriculum learning. CoRR, abs/2102.03554

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Stephen Crain. 1991. Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4):597--612

    1991

  4. [12]

    Yiming Cui, Wanxiang Che, Shijin Wang, and Ting Liu. 2022. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:253447406 Lert: A linguistically-motivated pre-trained language model . ArXiv, abs/2211.05344

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Östen Dahl. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam

    2004

  6. [14]

    Elisa Di Domenico. 2017. Syntactic Complexity from a Language Acquisition Perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

    2017

  7. [15]

    Ronen Eldan and Yuanzhi Li. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2305.07759 Tinystories: How small can language models be and still speak coherent english? CoRR, abs/2305.07759

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Allyson Ettinger. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00298 What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language models . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:34--48

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Linnea Evanson, Yair Lakretz, and Jean-R \'e mi King. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259089351 Language acquisition: do children and language models follow similar learning stages? In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    2023

  10. [18]

    Denise Ren da Fontoura, Jaqueline de Carvalho Rodrigues, Luciana Behs de S \'a Carneiro, Ana Maria Mon c \ a o, and Jerusa Fumagalli de Salles. 2012. Rehabilitation of language in expressive aphasias: a literature review. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 6:223--235

    2012

  11. [19]

    N Friedmann and J. Reznick. 2021. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5716 Stages rather than ages in the acquisition of movement structures: Data from sentence repetition and 27696 spontaneous clauses . Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 39(1):1--69

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Maria Garraffa and Valantis Fyndanis. 2020. Linguistic theory and aphasia: An overview. Aphasiology, 34(8):905--926

    2020

  13. [21]

    Harold Goodglass and Lise Menn. 1985. Is agrammatism a unitary phenomenon? In Agrammatism, pages 1--26. Elsevier

    1985

  14. [22]

    Elizabeth Bates Judith C Goodman. 1997. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Language and cognitive Processes, 12(5-6):507--584

    1997

  15. [23]

    Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes. 2020. Language acquisition and linguistic theory: When linguistic theory meets empirical data. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(3):369--376

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kristina Gulordava, Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Tal Linzen, and Marco Baroni. 2018. Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. CoRR, abs/1803.11138

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Helm-Estabrooks

    N. Helm-Estabrooks. 1981. https://books.google.it/books?id=a-RPnQAACAAJ Helm Elicited Language Program for Syntax Stimulation . Pro-Ed

    1981

  18. [26]

    Jennifer Hu, Jon Gauthier, Peng Qian, Ethan Wilcox, and Roger Levy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.158 A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computationa...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Huebner, Elior Sulem, Fisher Cynthia, and Dan Roth

    Philip A. Huebner, Elior Sulem, Fisher Cynthia, and Dan Roth. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.conll-1.49 B aby BERT a: Learning more grammar with small-scale child-directed language . In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, page...

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Bai Li, Zining Zhu, Guillaume Thomas, Yang Xu, and Frank Rudzicz. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.325 How is BERT surprised? layerwise detection of linguistic anomalies . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Tal Linzen, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00115 Assessing the ability of LSTM s to learn syntax-sensitive dependencies . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:521--535

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Richard Diehl Martinez, Hope McGovern, Zebulon Goriely, Christopher Davis, Andrew Caines, Paula Buttery, and Lisa Beinborn. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.conll-babylm.10 CLIMB -- curriculum learning for infant-inspired model building . In Proceedings of the BabyLM Cha...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Rebecca Marvin and Tal Linzen. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1151 Targeted syntactic evaluation of language models . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192--1202, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computat...

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Mayer, Erin B

    Jessica F. Mayer, Erin B. Madden, Jennifer Mozeiko, et al. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00192 Generalization in aphasia treatment: A tutorial for speech-language pathologists . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33(1):57--73

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Matti Miestamo. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, and Fred Karlsson, editors, Language Complexity: Typology , Contact, Change . John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam

    2008

  26. [34]

    Juri Opitz, Shira Wein, and Nathan Schneider. 2024. Natural language processing relies on linguistics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05966

    2024

  27. [35]

    Gabriele Pallotti. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435 A simple view of linguistic complexity . Second Language Research, 31(1):117--134

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Elizabeth Rochon, Laura Laird, Arpita Bose, and Joanne Scofield. 2005. Mapping therapy for sentence production impairments in nonfluent aphasia. Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 15(1):1--36

    2005

  29. [37]

    Myrna F Schwartz, Eleanor M Saffran, Ruth B Fink, Jessica L Myers, and Nadine Martin. 1994. Mapping therapy: A treatment programme for agrammatism. Aphasiology, 8(1):19--54

    1994

  30. [38]

    Taiga Someya, Ryo Yoshida, and Yohei Oseki. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.1356 Targeted syntactic evaluation on the C homsky hierarchy . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (L...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Cynthia Thompson and Lewis Shapiro. 2005. Treating agrammatic aphasia within a linguistic framework: Treatment of underlying forms. Aphasiology, 19(10-11):1021--1036

    2005

  32. [40]

    Cynthia K Thompson, Lewis P Shapiro, Swathi Kiran, and Jana Sobecks. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/047) The role of syntactic complexity in treatment of sentence deficits in agrammatic aphasia: the complexity account of treatment efficacy (cate) . J Speech Lang ...

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    Ciosici, Michael Hassid, Kenneth Heafield, Sara Hooker, Colin Raffel, Pedro H

    Marcos Treviso, Ji-Ung Lee, Tianchu Ji, Betty van Aken, Qingqing Cao, Manuel R. Ciosici, Michael Hassid, Kenneth Heafield, Sara Hooker, Colin Raffel, Pedro H. Martins, André F. T. Martins, Jessica Zosa Forde, Peter Milder, Edwin Simpson, Noam Slonim, Jesse Dodge, Emma Strubell...

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Alex Warstadt and Samuel R. Bowman. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.07998 What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition . Preprint, arXiv:2208.07998

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alex Warstadt, Aaron Mueller, Leshem Choshen, Ethan Wilcox, Chengxu Zhuang, Juan Ciro, Rafael Mosquera, Bhargavi Paranjabe, Adina Williams, Tal Linzen, and Ryan Cotterell. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.conll-babylm.1 Findings of the B aby LM challenge: Sample-efficien...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng-Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00321 BL i MP : The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for E nglish . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00290 Neural network acceptability judgments . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625--641

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    J Webster, Anne Whitworth, and J Morris. 2015. Is it time to stop “fishing”? a review of generalisation following aphasia intervention. Aphasiology, 29(11):1240--1264

    2015

  39. [47]

    Aditya Yedetore and Najoung Kim. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.235 Semantic training signals promote hierarchical syntactic generalization in transformers . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 405...

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Thomas McCoy

    Aditya Yedetore, Tal Linzen, Robert Frank, and R. Thomas McCoy. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.521 How poor is the stimulus? evaluating hierarchical generalization in neural networks trained on child-directed speech . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting ...

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Junru Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Hai Zhao, and Shuailiang Zhang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.399 LIMIT - BERT : Linguistics informed multi-task BERT . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4450--4461, Online. Asso...

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  43. [51]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.