Pamela D. Rivière

Sean Trott, Samuel Taylor, Cameron Jones et al. · mit

Research on mental state reasoning in language models (LMs) has the potential to inform theories of human social cognition--such as the theory that mental state reasoning emerges in part from language exposure--and our understanding of LMs themselves. Yet much published work on LMs relies on a relatively small sample of closed-source LMs, limiting our ability to rigorously test psychological theories and evaluate LM capacities. Here, we replicate and extend published work on the false belief task by assessing LM mental state reasoning behavior across 41 open-weight models (from distinct model families). We find sensitivity to implied knowledge states in 34% of the LMs tested; however, consistent with prior work, none fully ``explain away'' the effect in humans. Larger LMs show increased sensitivity and also exhibit higher psychometric predictive power. Finally, we use LM behavior to generate and test a novel hypothesis about human cognition: both humans and LMs show a bias towards attributing false beliefs when knowledge states are cued using a non-factive verb (``John thinks...'') than when cued indirectly (``John looks in the...''). Unlike the primary effect of knowledge states, where human sensitivity exceeds that of LMs, the magnitude of the human knowledge cue effect falls squarely within the distribution of LM effect sizes-suggesting that distributional statistics of language can in principle account for the latter but not the former in humans. These results demonstrate the value of using larger samples of open-weight LMs to test theories of human cognition and evaluate LM capacities.

Sean Trott, Pamela D. Rivière

The success of Large Language Models (LLMs) in other domains has raised the question of whether LLMs can reliably assess and manipulate the readability of text. We approach this question empirically. First, using a published corpus of 4,724 English text excerpts, we find that readability estimates produced ``zero-shot'' from GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-4o mini exhibit relatively high correlation with human judgments (r = 0.76 and r = 0.74, respectively), out-performing estimates derived from traditional readability formulas and various psycholinguistic indices. Then, in a pre-registered human experiment (N = 59), we ask whether Turbo can reliably make text easier or harder to read. We find evidence to support this hypothesis, though considerable variance in human judgments remains unexplained. We conclude by discussing the limitations of this approach, including limited scope, as well as the validity of the ``readability'' construct and its dependence on context, audience, and goal.

Catherine Arnett, Pamela D. Rivière, Tyler A. Chang et al.

The relationship between language model tokenization and performance is an open area of research. Here, we investigate how different tokenization schemes impact number agreement in Spanish plurals. We find that morphologically-aligned tokenization performs similarly to other tokenization schemes, even when induced artificially for words that would not be tokenized that way during training. We then present exploratory analyses demonstrating that language model embeddings for different plural tokenizations have similar distributions along the embedding space axis that maximally distinguishes singular and plural nouns. Our results suggest that morphologically-aligned tokenization is a viable tokenization approach, and existing models already generalize some morphological patterns to new items. However, our results indicate that morphological tokenization is not strictly required for performance.

Sean Trott, Pamela D. Rivière

Multilingual language models (LMs) sometimes under-perform their monolingual counterparts, possibly due to capacity limitations. We quantify this ``multilingual penalty'' for lexical disambiguation--a task requiring precise semantic representations and contextualization mechanisms--using controlled datasets of human relatedness judgments for ambiguous words in both English and Spanish. Comparing monolingual and multilingual LMs from the same families, we find consistently reduced performance in multilingual LMs. We then explore three potential capacity constraints: representational (reduced embedding isotropy), attentional (reduced attention to disambiguating cues), and vocabulary-related (increased multi-token segmentation). Multilingual LMs show some evidence of all three limitations; moreover, these factors statistically account for the variance formerly attributed to a model's multilingual status. These findings suggest both that multilingual LMs do suffer from multiple capacity constraints, and that these constraints correlate with reduced disambiguation performance.

Pamela D. Rivière, Sean Trott

Despite an in-principle understanding of self-attention matrix operations in Transformer language models (LMs), it remains unclear precisely how these operations map onto interpretable computations or functions--and how or when individual attention heads develop specialized attention patterns. Here, we present a pipeline to systematically probe attention mechanisms, and we illustrate its value by leveraging lexical ambiguity--where a single word has multiple meanings--to isolate attention mechanisms that contribute to word sense disambiguation. We take a "developmental" approach: first, using publicly available Pythia LM checkpoints, we identify inflection points in disambiguation performance for each LM in the suite; in 14M and 410M, we identify heads whose attention to disambiguating words covaries with overall disambiguation performance across development. We then stress-test the robustness of these heads to stimulus perturbations: in 14M, we find limited robustness, but in 410M, we identify multiple heads with surprisingly generalizable behavior. Then, in a causal analysis, we find that ablating the target heads demonstrably impairs disambiguation performance, particularly in 14M. We additionally reproduce developmental analyses of 14M across all of its random seeds. Together, these results suggest: that disambiguation benefits from a constellation of mechanisms, some of which (especially in 14M) are highly sensitive to the position and part-of-speech of the disambiguating cue; and that larger models (410M) may contain heads with more robust disambiguation behavior. They also join a growing body of work that highlights the value of adopting a developmental perspective when probing LM mechanisms.

Pamela D. Rivière, Anne L. Beatty-Martínez, Sean Trott

Lexical ambiguity -- where a single wordform takes on distinct, context-dependent meanings -- serves as a useful tool to compare across different language models' (LMs') ability to form distinct, contextualized representations of the same stimulus. Few studies have systematically compared LMs' contextualized word embeddings for languages beyond English. Here, we evaluate semantic representations of Spanish ambiguous nouns in context in a suite of Spanish-language monolingual and multilingual BERT-based models. We develop a novel dataset of minimal-pair sentences evoking the same or different sense for a target ambiguous noun. In a pre-registered study, we collect contextualized human relatedness judgments for each sentence pair. We find that various BERT-based LMs' contextualized semantic representations capture some variance in human judgments but fall short of the human benchmark. In exploratory work, we find that performance scales with model size. We also identify stereotyped trajectories of target noun disambiguation as a proportion of traversal through a given LM family's architecture, which we partially replicate in English. We contribute (1) a dataset of controlled, Spanish sentence stimuli with human relatedness norms, and (2) to our evolving understanding of the impact that LM specification (architectures, training protocols) exerts on contextualized embeddings.