Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexity
Clara Meister, Ryan Cotterell
Abstract
We propose an alternate approach to quantifying how well language models learn natural language: we ask how well they match the statistical tendencies of natural language. To answer this question, we analyze whether text generated from language models exhibits the statistical tendencies present in the humangenerated text on which they were trained. We provide a framework-paired with significance tests-for evaluating the fit of language models to these trends. We find that neural language models appear to learn only a subset of the tendencies considered, but align much more closely with empirical trends than proposed theoretical distributions (when present). Further, the fit to different distributions is highly-dependent on both model architecture and generation strategy. As concrete examples, text generated under the nucleus sampling scheme adheres more closely to the typetoken relationship of natural language than text produced using standard ancestral sampling; text from LSTMs reflects the natural language distributions over length, stopwords, and symbols surprisingly well.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers23
- Coherence boosting: When your pretrained language model is not paying enough attentionNikolay Malkin, Zhen Wang, Nebojsa JojicACL 2022 · 45 citations
- Emergent Representations of Program Semantics in Language Models Trained on ProgramsCharles Jin, Martin C. RinardICML 2024 · 34 citations
- Evaluating Distributional Distortion in Neural Language ModelingBenjamin LeBrun, Alessandro Sordoni, Timothy J. O'DonnellICLR 2022 · 26 citations
- Meaning Representations from Trajectories in Autoregressive ModelsTian Yu Liu, Matthew Trager, Alessandro Achille, Pramuditha Perera et al.ICLR 2024 · 22 citations
- REAR: A Relevance-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Framework for Open-Domain Question AnsweringYuhao Wang, Ruiyang Ren, Junyi Li, Xin Zhao et al.EMNLP 2024 · 12 citations
Builds on3
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Improved Natural Language Generation via Loss TruncationDaniel Kang, Tatsunori HashimotoACL 2020 · 72 citations
- Probing for Referential Information in Language ModelsIonut-Teodor Sorodoc, Kristina Gulordava, Gemma BoledaACL 2020 · 31 citations
Related papers
- Examining the Inductive Bias of Neural Language Models with Artificial LanguagesJennifer C. White, Ryan CotterellACL 2021
- Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are FooledDaphne Ippolito, Daniel Duckworth, Chris Callison-Burch, Douglas EckACL 2020 · 21 citations
- What Languages are Easy to Language-Model? A Perspective from Learning Probabilistic Regular LanguagesNadav Borenstein, Anej Svete, Robin Chan, Josef Valvoda et al.ACL 2024
- The Grammar-Learning Trajectories of Neural Language ModelsLeshem Choshen, Guy Hacohen, Daphna Weinshall, Omri AbendACL 2022
- Are Language Models Any Good at Density Modeling?Sriram Ranga, Sai Shashank Bedampeta, Rui Mao, Anupam ChattopadhyayAAAI 2026
