Thomas Bauwens

Wessel Poelman, Thomas Bauwens, Miryam de Lhoneux

The extent to which individual language characteristics influence tokenization and language modeling is an open question. Differences in morphological systems have been suggested as both unimportant and crucial to consider (Cotterell et al., 2018; Gerz et al., 2018a; Park et al., 2021, inter alia). We argue this conflicting evidence is due to confounding factors in experimental setups, making it hard to compare results and draw conclusions. We identify confounding factors in analyses trying to answer the question of whether, and how, morphology relates to language modeling. Next, we re-assess three hypotheses by Arnett & Bergen (2025) for why modeling agglutinative languages results in higher perplexities than fusional languages: they look at morphological alignment of tokenization, tokenization efficiency, and dataset size. We show that each conclusion includes confounding factors. Finally, we introduce token bigram metrics as an intrinsic way to predict the difficulty of causal language modeling, and find that they are gradient proxies for morphological complexity that do not require expert annotation. Ultimately, we outline necessities to reliably answer whether, and how, morphology relates to language modeling.

Kushal Tatariya, Vladimir Araujo, Thomas Bauwens et al.

Pixel-based language models have emerged as a compelling alternative to subword-based language modelling, particularly because they can represent virtually any script. PIXEL, a canonical example of such a model, is a vision transformer that has been pre-trained on rendered text. While PIXEL has shown promising cross-script transfer abilities and robustness to orthographic perturbations, it falls short of outperforming monolingual subword counterparts like BERT in most other contexts. This discrepancy raises questions about the amount of linguistic knowledge learnt by these models and whether their performance in language tasks stems more from their visual capabilities than their linguistic ones. To explore this, we probe PIXEL using a variety of linguistic and visual tasks to assess its position on the vision-to-language spectrum. Our findings reveal a substantial gap between the model's visual and linguistic understanding. The lower layers of PIXEL predominantly capture superficial visual features, whereas the higher layers gradually learn more syntactic and semantic abstractions. Additionally, we examine variants of PIXEL trained with different text rendering strategies, discovering that introducing certain orthographic constraints at the input level can facilitate earlier learning of surface-level features. With this study, we hope to provide insights that aid the further development of pixel-based language models.