Annika Heuser

Héctor Javier Vázquez Martínez, Annika Lea Heuser, Charles Yang et al.

The success of neural language models (LMs) on many technological tasks has brought about their potential relevance as scientific theories of language despite some clear differences between LM training and child language acquisition. In this paper we argue that some of the most prominent benchmarks for evaluating the syntactic capacities of LMs may not be sufficiently rigorous. In particular, we show that the template-based benchmarks lack the structural diversity commonly found in the theoretical and psychological studies of language. When trained on small-scale data modeling child language acquisition, the LMs can be readily matched by simple baseline models. We advocate for the use of the readily available, carefully curated datasets that have been evaluated for gradient acceptability by large pools of native speakers and are designed to probe the structural basis of grammar specifically. On one such dataset, the LI-Adger dataset, LMs evaluate sentences in a way inconsistent with human language users. We conclude with suggestions for better connecting LMs with the empirical study of child language acquisition.

Annika Heuser, Tyler Kendall, Miguel del Rio et al.

Common measures of accuracy used to assess the performance of automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems, as well as human transcribers, conflate multiple sources of error. Stylistic differences, such as verbatim vs non-verbatim, can play a significant role in ASR performance evaluation when differences exist between training and test datasets. The problem is compounded for speech from underrepresented varieties, where the speech to orthography mapping is not as standardized. We categorize the kinds of stylistic differences between 6 transcription versions, 4 human- and 2 ASR-produced, of 10 hours of African American English (AAE) speech. Focusing on verbatim features and AAE morphosyntactic features, we investigate the interactions of these categories with how well transcripts can be compared via word error rate (WER). The results, and overall analysis, help clarify how ASR outputs are a function of the decisions made by the training data's human transcribers.