Much theoretical work has described the ability of transformers to represent formal languages. However, linking theoretical results to empirical performance is not straightforward due to the complex interplay between the architecture, the learning algorithm, and training data. To test whether theoretical lower bounds imply learnability of formal languages, we turn to recent work relating transformers to n-gram language models (LMs). We study transformers’ ability to learn random n-gram LMs of two kinds: ones with arbitrary next-symbol probabilities and ones where those are defined with shared parameters. We find that classic estimation techniques for n-gram LMs such as add-𝜆 smoothing outperform transformers on the former, while transformers perform better on the latter, outperforming methods specifically designed to learn n-gram LMs.

The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the factual accuracy of their outputs. In this work, we present Factcheck-Bench, a holistic end-to-end framework for annotating and evaluating the factuality of LLM-generated responses, which encompasses a multi-stage annotation scheme designed to yield detailed labels for fact-checking and correcting not just the final prediction, but also the intermediate steps that a fact-checking system might need to take. Based on this framework, we construct an open-domain factuality benchmark in three-levels of granularity: claim, sentence, and document. We further propose a system, Factcheck-GPT, which follows our framework, and we show that it outperforms several popular LLM fact-checkers. We make our annotation tool, annotated data, benchmark, and code available at https://github.com/yuxiaw/Factcheck-GPT.

Uncovering latent values and opinions embedded in large language models (LLMs) can help identify biases and mitigate potential harm. Recently, this has been approached by prompting LLMs with survey questions and quantifying the stances in the outputs towards morally and politically charged statements. However, the stances generated by LLMs can vary greatly depending on how they are prompted, and there are many ways to argue for or against a given position. In this work, we propose to address this by analysing a large and robust dataset of 156k LLM responses to the 62 propositions of the Political Compass Test (PCT) generated by 6 LLMs using 420 prompt variations. We perform coarse-grained analysis of their generated stances and fine-grained analysis of the plain text justifications for those stances. For fine-grained analysis, we propose to identify tropes in the responses: semantically similar phrases that are recurrent and consistent across different prompts, revealing natural patterns in the text that a given LLM is prone to produce. We find that demographic features added to prompts significantly affect outcomes on the PCT, reflecting bias, as well as disparities between the results of tests when eliciting closed-form vs. open domain responses. Additionally, patterns in the plain text rationales via tropes show that similar justifications are repeatedly generated across models and prompts even with disparate stances.

What can large language models learn? By definition, language models (LM) are distributionsover strings. Therefore, an intuitive way of addressing the above question is to formalize it as a matter of learnability of classes of distributions over strings. While prior work in this direction focused on assessing the theoretical limits, in contrast, we seek to understand the empirical learnability. Unlike prior empirical work, we evaluate neural LMs on their home turf—learning probabilistic languages—rather than as classifiers of formal languages. In particular, we investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs. We empirically test the learnability of RLMs as a function of various complexity parameters of the RLM and the hidden state size of the neural LM. We find that the RLM rank, which corresponds to the size of linear space spanned by the logits of its conditional distributions, and the expected length of sampled strings are strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers. Several other predictors also reach significance, but with differing patterns between RNNs and Transformers.

NLP methods can aid historians in analyzing textual materials in greater volumes than manually feasible. Developing such methods poses substantial challenges though. First, acquiring large, annotated historical datasets is difficult, as only domain experts can reliably label them. Second, most available off-the-shelf NLP models are trained on modern language texts, rendering them significantly less effective when applied to historical corpora. This is particularly problematic for less well studied tasks, and for languages other than English. This paper addresses these challenges while focusing on the under-explored task of event extraction from a novel domain of historical texts. We introduce a new multilingual dataset in English, French, and Dutch composed of newspaper ads from the early modern colonial period reporting on enslaved people who liberated themselves from enslavement. We find that: 1) even with scarce annotated data, it is possible to achieve surprisingly good results by formulating the problem as an extractive QA task and leveraging existing datasets and models for modern languages; and 2) cross-lingual low-resource learning for historical languages is highly challenging, and machine translation of the historical datasets to the considered target languages is, in practice, often the best-performing solution.

Data-driven analyses of biases in historical texts can help illuminate the origin and development of biases prevailing in modern society. However, digitised historical documents pose a challenge for NLP practitioners as these corpora suffer from errors introduced by optical character recognition (OCR) and are written in an archaic language. In this paper, we investigate the continuities and transformations of bias in historical newspapers published in the Caribbean during the colonial era (18th to 19th centuries). Our analyses are performed along the axes of gender, race, and their intersection. We examine these biases by conducting a temporal study in which we measure the development of lexical associations using distributional semantics models and word embeddings. Further, we evaluate the effectiveness of techniques designed to process OCR-generated data and assess their stability when trained on and applied to the noisy historical newspapers. We find that there is a trade-off between the stability of the word embeddings and their compatibility with the historical dataset. We provide evidence that gender and racial biases are interdependent, and their intersection triggers distinct effects. These findings align with the theory of intersectionality, which stresses that biases affecting people with multiple marginalised identities compound to more than the sum of their constituents.

The digitisation of historical documents has provided historians with unprecedented research opportunities. Yet, the conventional approach to analysing historical documents involves converting them from images to text using OCR, a process that overlooks the potential benefits of treating them as images and introduces high levels of noise. To bridge this gap, we take advantage of recent advancements in pixel-based language models trained to reconstruct masked patches of pixels instead of predicting token distributions. Due to the scarcity of real historical scans, we propose a novel method for generating synthetic scans to resemble real historical documents. We then pre-train our model, PHD, on a combination of synthetic scans and real historical newspapers from the 1700-1900 period. Through our experiments, we demonstrate that PHD exhibits high proficiency in reconstructing masked image patches and provide evidence of our model’s noteworthy language understanding capabilities. Notably, we successfully apply our model to a historical QA task, highlighting its usefulness in this domain.

Humor is an important social phenomenon, serving complex social and psychological functions. However, despite being studied for millennia humor is computationally not well understood, often considered an AI-complete problem. In this work, we introduce a novel setting in humor mining: automatically detecting funny and unusual scientific papers. We are inspired by the Ig Nobel prize, a satirical prize awarded annually to celebrate funny scientific achievements (example past winner: “Are cows more likely to lie down the longer they stand?”). This challenging task has unique characteristics that make it particularly suitable for automatic learning. We construct a dataset containing thousands of funny papers and use it to learn classifiers, combining findings from psychology and linguistics with recent advances in NLP. We use our models to identify potentially funny papers in a large dataset of over 630,000 articles. The results demonstrate the potential of our methods, and more broadly the utility of integrating state-of-the-art NLP methods with insights from more traditional disciplines