Yulu Qin

Yulu Qin, Wentao Wang, Brenden M. Lake

Language models (LMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in generating linguistically coherent text, sparking discussions about their relevance to understanding human language learnability. However, a significant gap exists between the training data for these models and the linguistic input a child receives. LMs are typically trained on data that is orders of magnitude larger and fundamentally different from child-directed speech (Warstadt and Bowman, 2022; Warstadt et al., 2023; Frank, 2023a). Addressing this discrepancy, our research focuses on training LMs on subsets of a single child's linguistic input. Previously, Wang, Vong, Kim, and Lake (2023) found that LMs trained in this setting can form syntactic and semantic word clusters and develop sensitivity to certain linguistic phenomena, but they only considered LSTMs and simpler neural networks trained from just one single-child dataset. Here, to examine the robustness of learnability from single-child input, we systematically train six different model architectures on five datasets (3 single-child and 2 baselines). We find that the models trained on single-child datasets showed consistent results that matched with previous work, underscoring the robustness of forming meaningful syntactic and semantic representations from a subset of a child's linguistic input.

Nicholas Edwards, Yukyung Lee, Yujun Audrey Mao et al.

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for performing sophisticated software engineering tasks autonomously. In addition, there has been progress towards developing agents that can perform parts of the research pipeline in machine learning and the natural sciences. We argue that research extension and its implementation is a critical capability for such systems, and introduce RExBench to support the evaluation of this capability. RExBench is a benchmark consisting of 12 realistic research experiment implementation tasks that aim to investigate research hypotheses that have not previously been implemented. Each task is set up as an extension to an existing research paper and codebase, accompanied by domain expert-written instructions. RExBench is robust to data contamination, and supports an automatic evaluation infrastructure that executes agent outputs to determine whether the success criteria are met. We use this benchmark to evaluate nine LLM agents implemented using three different frameworks: aider, Claude Code, and OpenHands. We find that all agents evaluated fail to autonomously implement the majority of the extensions. Although the success rate improves with additional human-written hints, the best performance under this setting remains below 40%. This indicates that current agents are still short of being able to handle realistic research extension tasks without substantial human guidance.

Yulu Qin, Dheeraj Varghese, Adam Dahlgren Lindström et al.

Does vision-and-language (VL) training change the linguistic representations of language models in meaningful ways? Most results in the literature have shown inconsistent or marginal differences, both behaviorally and representationally. In this work, we start from the hypothesis that the domain in which VL training could have a significant effect is lexical-conceptual knowledge, in particular its taxonomic organization. Through comparing minimal pairs of text-only LMs and their VL-trained counterparts, we first show that the VL models often outperform their text-only counterparts on a text-only question-answering task that requires taxonomic understanding of concepts mentioned in the questions. Using an array of targeted behavioral and representational analyses, we show that the LMs and VLMs do not differ significantly in terms of their taxonomic knowledge itself, but they differ in how they represent questions that contain concepts in a taxonomic relation vs. a non-taxonomic relation. This implies that the taxonomic knowledge itself does not change substantially through additional VL training, but VL training does improve the deployment of this knowledge in the context of a specific task, even when the presentation of the task is purely linguistic.