Confounding Factors in Relating Model Performance to Morphology
This work addresses methodological issues in linguistics and NLP for researchers studying language modeling, but it is incremental as it critiques existing studies without presenting a new breakthrough.
The paper tackles the problem of conflicting evidence on how morphology influences language modeling by identifying confounding factors in experimental setups and re-assessing hypotheses, showing that previous conclusions are confounded and introducing token bigram metrics as intrinsic predictors of modeling difficulty.
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.