Black Big Boxes: Do Language Models Hide a Theory of Adjective Order?

In English and other languages, multiple adjectives in a complex noun phrase show intricate ordering patterns that have been a target of much linguistic theory. These patterns offer an opportunity to assess the ability of language models (LMs) to learn subtle rules of language involving factors that cross the traditional divisions of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. We review existing hypotheses designed to explain Adjective Order Preferences (AOPs) in humans and develop a setup to study AOPs in LMs: we present a reusable corpus of adjective pairs and define AOP measures for LMs. With these tools, we study a series of LMs across intermediate checkpoints during training. We find that all models' predictions are much closer to human AOPs than predictions generated by factors identified in theoretical linguistics. At the same time, we demonstrate that the observed AOPs in LMs are strongly correlated with the frequency of the adjective pairs in the training data and report limited generalization to unseen combinations. This highlights the difficulty in establishing the link between LM performance and linguistic theory. We therefore conclude with a road map for future studies our results set the stage for, and a discussion of key questions about the nature of knowledge in LMs and their ability to generalize beyond the training sets.

Language Models Use Monotonicity to Assess NPI Licensing

We investigate the semantic knowledge of language models (LMs), focusing on (1) whether these LMs create categories of linguistic environments based on their semantic monotonicity properties, and (2) whether these categories play a similar role in LMs as in human language understanding, using negative polarity item licensing as a case study. We introduce a series of experiments consisting of probing with diagnostic classifiers (DCs), linguistic acceptability tasks, as well as a novel DC ranking method that tightly connects the probing results to the inner workings of the LM. By applying our experimental pipeline to LMs trained on various filtered corpora, we are able to gain stronger insights into the semantic generalizations that are acquired by these models.

Some of Them Can be Guessed! Exploring the Effect of Linguistic Context in Predicting Quantifiers

We study the role of linguistic context in predicting quantifiers (`few', `all'). We collect crowdsourced data from human participants and test various models in a local (single-sentence) and a global context (multi-sentence) condition. Models significantly out-perform humans in the former setting and are only slightly better in the latter. While human performance improves with more linguistic context (especially on proportional quantifiers), model performance suffers. Models are very effective in exploiting lexical and morpho-syntactic patterns; humans are better at genuinely understanding the meaning of the (global) context.

Parameterized Complexity Results for a Model of Theory of Mind Based on Dynamic Epistemic Logic

In this paper we introduce a computational-level model of theory of mind (ToM) based on dynamic epistemic logic (DEL), and we analyze its computational complexity. The model is a special case of DEL model checking. We provide a parameterized complexity analysis, considering several aspects of DEL (e.g., number of agents, size of preconditions, etc.) as parameters. We show that model checking for DEL is PSPACE-hard, also when restricted to single-pointed models and S5 relations, thereby solving an open problem in the literature. Our approach is aimed at formalizing current intractability claims in the cognitive science literature regarding computational models of ToM.