Prompting Encoder Models for Zero-Shot Classification: A Cross-Domain Study in Italian

Addressing the challenge of limited annotated data in specialized fields and low-resource languages is crucial for the effective use of Language Models (LMs). While most Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on general-purpose English corpora, there is a notable gap in models specifically tailored for Italian, particularly for technical and bureaucratic jargon. This paper explores the feasibility of employing smaller, domain-specific encoder LMs alongside prompting techniques to enhance performance in these specialized contexts. Our study concentrates on the Italian bureaucratic and legal language, experimenting with both general-purpose and further pre-trained encoder-only models. We evaluated the models on downstream tasks such as document classification and entity typing and conducted intrinsic evaluations using Pseudo-Log-Likelihood. The results indicate that while further pre-trained models may show diminished robustness in general knowledge, they exhibit superior adaptability for domain-specific tasks, even in a zero-shot setting. Furthermore, the application of calibration techniques and in-domain verbalizers significantly enhances the efficacy of encoder models. These domain-specialized models prove to be particularly advantageous in scenarios where in-domain resources or expertise are scarce. In conclusion, our findings offer new insights into the use of Italian models in specialized contexts, which may have a significant impact on both research and industrial applications in the digital transformation era.

Comparing Plausibility Estimates in Base and Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models

Instruction-tuned LLMs can respond to explicit queries formulated as prompts, which greatly facilitates interaction with human users. However, prompt-based approaches might not always be able to tap into the wealth of implicit knowledge acquired by LLMs during pre-training. This paper presents a comprehensive study of ways to evaluate semantic plausibility in LLMs. We compare base and instruction-tuned LLM performance on an English sentence plausibility task via (a) explicit prompting and (b) implicit estimation via direct readout of the probabilities models assign to strings. Experiment 1 shows that, across model architectures and plausibility datasets, (i) log likelihood ($\textit{LL}$) scores are the most reliable indicator of sentence plausibility, with zero-shot prompting yielding inconsistent and typically poor results; (ii) $\textit{LL}$-based performance is still inferior to human performance; (iii) instruction-tuned models have worse $\textit{LL}$-based performance than base models. In Experiment 2, we show that $\textit{LL}$ scores across models are modulated by context in the expected way, showing high performance on three metrics of context-sensitive plausibility and providing a direct match to explicit human plausibility judgments. Overall, $\textit{LL}$ estimates remain a more reliable measure of plausibility in LLMs than direct prompting.

Agentività e telicità in GilBERTo: implicazioni cognitive

The goal of this study is to investigate whether a Transformer-based neural language model infers lexical semantics and use this information for the completion of morphosyntactic patterns. The semantic properties considered are telicity (also combined with definiteness) and agentivity. Both act at the interface between semantics and morphosyntax: they are semantically determined and syntactically encoded. The tasks were submitted to both the computational model and a group of Italian native speakers. The comparison between the two groups of data allows us to investigate to what extent neural language models capture significant aspects of human semantic competence.

Understanding Natural Language Understanding Systems. A Critical Analysis

The development of machines that {\guillemotleft}talk like us{\guillemotright}, also known as Natural Language Understanding (NLU) systems, is the Holy Grail of Artificial Intelligence (AI), since language is the quintessence of human intelligence. The brief but intense life of NLU research in AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP) is full of ups and downs, with periods of high hopes that the Grail is finally within reach, typically followed by phases of equally deep despair and disillusion. But never has the trust that we can build {\guillemotleft}talking machines{\guillemotright} been stronger than the one engendered by the last generation of NLU systems. But is it gold all that glitters in AI? do state-of-the-art systems possess something comparable to the human knowledge of language? Are we at the dawn of a new era, in which the Grail is finally closer to us? In fact, the latest achievements of AI systems have sparkled, or better renewed, an intense scientific debate on their true language understanding capabilities. Some defend the idea that, yes, we are on the right track, despite the limits that computational models still show. Others are instead radically skeptic and even dismissal: The present limits are not just contingent and temporary problems of NLU systems, but the sign of the intrinsic inadequacy of the epistemological and technological paradigm grounding them. This paper aims at contributing to such debate by carrying out a critical analysis of the linguistic abilities of the most recent NLU systems. I contend that they incorporate important aspects of the way language is learnt and processed by humans, but at the same time they lack key interpretive and inferential skills that it is unlikely they can attain unless they are integrated with structured knowledge and the ability to exploit it for language use.

Event knowledge in large language models: the gap between the impossible and the unlikely

People constantly use language to learn about the world. Computational linguists have capitalized on this fact to build large language models (LLMs) that acquire co-occurrence-based knowledge from language corpora. LLMs achieve impressive performance on many tasks, but the robustness of their world knowledge has been questioned. Here, we ask: do LLMs acquire generalized knowledge about real-world events? Using curated sets of minimal sentence pairs (n=1215), we tested whether LLMs are more likely to generate plausible event descriptions compared to their implausible counterparts. We found that LLMs systematically distinguish possible and impossible events (The teacher bought the laptop vs. The laptop bought the teacher) but fall short of human performance when distinguishing likely and unlikely events (The nanny tutored the boy vs. The boy tutored the nanny). In follow-up analyses, we show that (i) LLM scores are driven by both plausibility and surface-level sentence features, (ii) LLMs generalize well across syntactic sentence variants (active vs passive) but less well across semantic sentence variants (synonymous sentences), (iii) some, but not all LLM deviations from ground-truth labels align with crowdsourced human judgments, and (iv) explicit event plausibility information emerges in middle LLM layers and remains high thereafter. Overall, our analyses reveal a gap in LLMs' event knowledge, highlighting their limitations as generalized knowledge bases. We conclude by speculating that the differential performance on impossible vs. unlikely events is not a temporary setback but an inherent property of LLMs, reflecting a fundamental difference between linguistic knowledge and world knowledge in intelligent systems.

Word Order Matters when you Increase Masking

Word order, an essential property of natural languages, is injected in Transformer-based neural language models using position encoding. However, recent experiments have shown that explicit position encoding is not always useful, since some models without such feature managed to achieve state-of-the art performance on some tasks. To understand better this phenomenon, we examine the effect of removing position encodings on the pre-training objective itself (i.e., masked language modelling), to test whether models can reconstruct position information from co-occurrences alone. We do so by controlling the amount of masked tokens in the input sentence, as a proxy to affect the importance of position information for the task. We find that the necessity of position information increases with the amount of masking, and that masked language models without position encodings are not able to reconstruct this information on the task. These findings point towards a direct relationship between the amount of masking and the ability of Transformers to capture order-sensitive aspects of language using position encoding.

Subject Verb Agreement Error Patterns in Meaningless Sentences: Humans vs. BERT

Both humans and neural language models are able to perform subject-verb number agreement (SVA). In principle, semantics shouldn't interfere with this task, which only requires syntactic knowledge. In this work we test whether meaning interferes with this type of agreement in English in syntactic structures of various complexities. To do so, we generate both semantically well-formed and nonsensical items. We compare the performance of BERT-base to that of humans, obtained with a psycholinguistic online crowdsourcing experiment. We find that BERT and humans are both sensitive to our semantic manipulation: They fail more often when presented with nonsensical items, especially when their syntactic structure features an attractor (a noun phrase between the subject and the verb that has not the same number as the subject). We also find that the effect of meaningfulness on SVA errors is stronger for BERT than for humans, showing higher lexical sensitivity of the former on this task.

Probing for the Usage of Grammatical Number

A central quest of probing is to uncover how pre-trained models encode a linguistic property within their representations. An encoding, however, might be spurious-i.e., the model might not rely on it when making predictions. In this paper, we try to find encodings that the model actually uses, introducing a usage-based probing setup. We first choose a behavioral task which cannot be solved without using the linguistic property. Then, we attempt to remove the property by intervening on the model's representations. We contend that, if an encoding is used by the model, its removal should harm the performance on the chosen behavioral task. As a case study, we focus on how BERT encodes grammatical number, and on how it uses this encoding to solve the number agreement task. Experimentally, we find that BERT relies on a linear encoding of grammatical number to produce the correct behavioral output. We also find that BERT uses a separate encoding of grammatical number for nouns and verbs. Finally, we identify in which layers information about grammatical number is transferred from a noun to its head verb.

Does BERT really agree ? Fine-grained Analysis of Lexical Dependence on a Syntactic Task

Although transformer-based Neural Language Models demonstrate impressive performance on a variety of tasks, their generalization abilities are not well understood. They have been shown to perform strongly on subject-verb number agreement in a wide array of settings, suggesting that they learned to track syntactic dependencies during their training even without explicit supervision. In this paper, we examine the extent to which BERT is able to perform lexically-independent subject-verb number agreement (NA) on targeted syntactic templates. To do so, we disrupt the lexical patterns found in naturally occurring stimuli for each targeted structure in a novel fine-grained analysis of BERT's behavior. Our results on nonce sentences suggest that the model generalizes well for simple templates, but fails to perform lexically-independent syntactic generalization when as little as one attractor is present.

Did the Cat Drink the Coffee? Challenging Transformers with Generalized Event Knowledge

Prior research has explored the ability of computational models to predict a word semantic fit with a given predicate. While much work has been devoted to modeling the typicality relation between verbs and arguments in isolation, in this paper we take a broader perspective by assessing whether and to what extent computational approaches have access to the information about the typicality of entire events and situations described in language (Generalized Event Knowledge). Given the recent success of Transformers Language Models (TLMs), we decided to test them on a benchmark for the \textit{dynamic estimation of thematic fit}. The evaluation of these models was performed in comparison with SDM, a framework specifically designed to integrate events in sentence meaning representations, and we conducted a detailed error analysis to investigate which factors affect their behavior. Our results show that TLMs can reach performances that are comparable to those achieved by SDM. However, additional analysis consistently suggests that TLMs do not capture important aspects of event knowledge, and their predictions often depend on surface linguistic features, such as frequent words, collocations and syntactic patterns, thereby showing sub-optimal generalization abilities.