Modular deep learning has been proposed for the efficient adaption of pre-trained models to new tasks, domains and languages. In particular, combining language adapters with task adapters has shown potential where no supervised data exists for a language. In this paper, we explore the role of language adapters in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer for natural language understanding (NLU) benchmarks. We study the effect of including a target-language adapter in detailed ablation studies with two multilingual models and three multilingual datasets. Our results show that the effect of target-language adapters is highly inconsistent across tasks, languages and models. Retaining the source-language adapter instead often leads to an equivalent, and sometimes to a better, performance. Removing the language adapter after training has only a weak negative effect, indicating that the language adapters do not have a strong impact on the predictions.

The self-rationalising capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been explored in restricted settings, using task-specific data sets.However, current LLMs do not (only) rely on specifically annotated data; nonetheless, they frequently explain their outputs.The properties of the generated explanations are influenced by the pre-training corpus and by the target data used for instruction fine-tuning.As the pre-training corpus includes a large amount of human-written explanations “in the wild”, we hypothesise that LLMs adopt common properties of human explanations.By analysing the outputs for a multi-domain instruction fine-tuning data set, we find that generated explanations show selectivity and contain illustrative elements, but less frequently are subjective or misleading.We discuss reasons and consequences of the properties’ presence or absence. In particular, we outline positive and negative implications depending on the goals and user groups of the self-rationalising system.

The self-rationalising capabilities of LLMs are appealing because the generated explanations can give insights into the plausibility of the predictions. However, how faithful the explanations are to the predictions is questionable, raising the need to explore the patterns behind them further.To this end, we propose a hypothesis-driven statistical framework. We use a Bayesian network to implement a hypothesis about how a task (in our example, natural language inference) is solved, and its internal states are translated into natural language with templates. Those explanations are then compared to LLM-generated free-text explanations using automatic and human evaluations. This allows us to judge how similar the LLM’s and the Bayesian network’s decision processes are. We demonstrate the usage of our framework with an example hypothesis and two realisations in Bayesian networks. The resulting models do not exhibit a strong similarity to GPT-3.5. We discuss the implications of this as well as the framework’s potential to approximate LLM decisions better in future work.

Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved natural language processing (NLP) performance, but training these models from scratch is resource-intensive and challenging for smaller languages. With this paper, we want to initiate a discussion on the necessity of language-specific pre-training of LLMs.We propose how the “one model-many models” conceptual framework for task transfer can be applied to language transfer and explore this approach by evaluating the performance of non-Swedish monolingual and multilingual models’ performance on tasks in Swedish.Our findings demonstrate that LLMs exposed to limited Swedish during training can be highly capable and transfer competencies from English off-the-shelf, including emergent abilities such as mathematical reasoning, while at the same time showing distinct culturally adapted behaviour. Our results suggest that there are resourceful alternatives to language-specific pre-training when creating useful LLMs for small languages.

Models able to generate free-text rationales that explain their output have been proposed as an important step towards interpretable NLP for “reasoning” tasks such as natural language inference and commonsense question answering. However, the relative merits of different architectures and types of rationales are not well understood and hard to measure. In this paper, we contribute two insights to this line of research: First, we find that models trained on gold explanations learn to rely on these but, in the case of the more challenging question answering data set we use, fail when given generated explanations at test time. However, additional fine-tuning on generated explanations teaches the model to distinguish between reliable and unreliable information in explanations. Second, we compare explanations by a generation-only model to those generated by a self-rationalizing model and find that, while the former score higher in terms of validity, factual correctness, and similarity to gold explanations, they are not more useful for downstream classification. We observe that the self-rationalizing model is prone to hallucination, which is punished by most metrics but may add useful context for the classification step.

Probing studies have extensively explored where in neural language models linguistic information is located. The standard approach to interpreting the results of a probing classifier is to focus on the layers whose representations give the highest performance on the probing task. We propose an alternative method that asks where the task-relevant information emerges in the model. Our framework consists of a family of metrics that explicitly model local information gain relative to the previous layer and each layer’s contribution to the model’s overall performance. We apply the new metrics to two pairs of syntactic probing tasks with different degrees of complexity and find that the metrics confirm the expected ordering only for one of the pairs. Our local metrics show a massive dominance of the first layers, indicating that the features that contribute the most to our probing tasks are not as high-level as global metrics suggest.

Previous work on probing word representations for linguistic knowledge has focused on interpolation tasks. In this paper, we instead analyse probes in an extrapolation setting, where the inputs at test time are deliberately chosen to be ‘harder’ than the training examples. We argue that such an analysis can shed further light on the open question whether probes actually decode linguistic knowledge, or merely learn the diagnostic task from shallow features. To quantify the hardness of an example, we consider scoring functions based on linguistic, statistical, and learning-related criteria, all of which are applicable to a broad range of NLP tasks. We discuss the relative merits of these criteria in the context of two syntactic probing tasks, part-of-speech tagging and syntactic dependency labelling. From our theoretical and experimental analysis, we conclude that distance-based and hard statistical criteria show the clearest differences between interpolation and extrapolation settings, while at the same time being transparent, intuitive, and easy to control.

Classifiers trained on auxiliary probing tasks are a popular tool to analyze the representations learned by neural sentence encoders such as BERT and ELMo. While many authors are aware of the difficulty to distinguish between “extracting the linguistic structure encoded in the representations” and “learning the probing task,” the validity of probing methods calls for further research. Using a neighboring word identity prediction task, we show that the token embeddings learned by neural sentence encoders contain a significant amount of information about the exact linear context of the token, and hypothesize that, with such information, learning standard probing tasks may be feasible even without additional linguistic structure. We develop this hypothesis into a framework in which analysis efforts can be scrutinized and argue that, with current models and baselines, conclusions that representations contain linguistic structure are not well-founded. Current probing methodology, such as restricting the classifier’s expressiveness or using strong baselines, can help to better estimate the complexity of learning, but not build a foundation for speculations about the nature of the linguistic structure encoded in the learned representations.

We explore different approaches to explicit entity modelling in language models (LM). We independently replicate two existing models in a controlled setup, introduce a simplified variant of one of the models and analyze their performance in direct comparison. Our results suggest that today’s models are limited as several stochastic variables make learning difficult. We show that the most challenging point in the systems is the decision if the next token is an entity token. The low precision and recall for this variable will lead to severe cascading errors. Our own simplified approach dispenses with the need for latent variables and improves the performance in the entity yes/no decision. A standard well-tuned baseline RNN-LM with a larger number of hidden units outperforms all entity-enabled LMs in terms of perplexity.