Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN

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

arxiv 2111.09509 v1 pith:T5RTKUS3 submitted 2021-11-18 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords textstructuremodelsnovellanguagetheyanalysesbaseline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? To tease apart these possibilities, we introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text, focusing on sequential structure (n-grams) and syntactic structure. We apply these analyses to four neural language models (an LSTM, a Transformer, Transformer-XL, and GPT-2). For local structure - e.g., individual dependencies - model-generated text is substantially less novel than our baseline of human-generated text from each model's test set. For larger-scale structure - e.g., overall sentence structure - model-generated text is as novel or even more novel than the human-generated baseline, but models still sometimes copy substantially, in some cases duplicating passages over 1,000 words long from the training set. We also perform extensive manual analysis showing that GPT-2's novel text is usually well-formed morphologically and syntactically but has reasonably frequent semantic issues (e.g., being self-contradictory).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the Privacy Risk of In-context Learning

    cs.LG 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A confidence-based membership inference attack identifies prompt demonstration data with AUC 0.69-0.86, more than fine-tuned models leak at matched utility, and ensembling reduces this to near random.

Pith tools