Language models are widely used in computational psycholinguistics to test theories that relate the negative log probability (the surprisal) of a region of interest (a substring of characters) under a language model to its cognitive cost experienced by readers, as operationalized, for example, by gaze duration on the region. However, the application of modern language models to psycholinguistic studies is complicated by the practice of using tokenization as an intermediate step in training a model. Doing so results in a language model over *token* strings rather than one over character strings. Vexingly, regions of interest are generally misaligned with these token strings. The paper argues that token-level language models should be (approximately) marginalized into character-level language models before they are used in psycholinguistic studies to compute the surprisal of a region of interest; then, the marginalized character-level language model can be used to compute the surprisal of an arbitrary character substring, which we term a focal area, that the experimenter may wish to use as a predictor. Our proposal of marginalizing a token-level model into a character-level one solves this misalignment issue independently of the tokenization scheme. Empirically, we discover various focal areas whose surprisal is a better psychometric predictor than the surprisal of the region of interest itself.

For nearly three decades, language models derived from the n-gram assumption held the state of the art on the task. The key to their success lay in the application of various smoothing techniques that served to combat overfitting. However, when neural language models toppled n-gram models as the best performers, n-gram smoothing techniques became less relevant. Indeed, it would hardly be an understatement to suggest that the line of inquiry into n-gram smoothing techniques became dormant. This paper re-opens the role classical n-gram smoothing techniques may play in the age of neural language models. First, we draw a formal equivalence between label smoothing, a popular regularization technique for neural language models, and add-𝜆 smoothing. Second, we derive a generalized framework for converting any n-gram smoothing technique into a regularizer compatible with neural language models. Our empirical results find that our novel regularizers are comparable to and, indeed, sometimes outperform label smoothing on language modeling and machine translation.

Sampling-based decoding strategies are widely employed for generating text from probabilistic models, yet standard ancestral sampling often results in text that is degenerate or incoherent. To alleviate this issue, various modifications to a model’s sampling distribution, such as top-p or top-k sampling, have been introduced and are now ubiquitously used in language generation systems. We propose a unified framework for understanding these techniques, which we term sampling adapters. Sampling adapters often lead to qualitatively better text, which raises the question: From a formal perspective, how are they changing the token-level distributions of language generation models? And why do these local changes lead to higher-quality text? We argue that the shift they enforce can be viewed as a trade-off between precision and recall: while the model loses its ability to produce certain strings, its precision rate on desirable text increases. While this trade-off is not reflected in standard metrics of distribution quality (such as perplexity), we find that several precision-emphasizing measures indeed indicate that sampling adapters can lead to probability distributions more aligned with the true distribution. Further, these measures correlate with higher sequence-level quality scores, specifically, Mauve.

An increasingly large percentage of natural language processing (NLP) tasks center around the generation of text from probabilistic language models. Despite this trend, techniques for improving or specifying preferences in these generated texts rely mostly on intuition-based heuristics. Further, there lacks a unified presentation of their motivations, practical implementation, successes and pitfalls. Practitioners must, therefore, choose somewhat blindly between generation algorithms—like top-p sampling or beam search—which can lead to wildly different results. At the same time, language generation research continues to criticize and improve the standard toolboxes, further adding entropy to the state of the field. In this tutorial, we will provide a centralized and cohesive discussion of critical considerations when choosing how to generate from a language model. We will cover a wide range of empirically-observed problems (like degradation, hallucination, repetition) and their corresponding proposed algorithmic solutions from recent research (like top-p sampling and its successors). We will then discuss a subset of these algorithms under a unified light; most stochastic generation strategies can be framed as locally adapting the probabilities of a model to avoid failure cases. Finally, we will then cover methods in controlled generation, that go beyond just ensuring coherence to ensure text exhibits specific desired properties. We aim for NLP practitioners and researchers to leave our tutorial with a unified framework which they can use to evaluate and contribute to the latest research in language generation.