Does Vision Accelerate Hierarchical Generalization in Neural Language Learners?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural language models (LMs) are arguably less data-efficient than humans from a language acquisition perspective. One fundamental question is why this human-LM gap arises. This study explores the advantage of grounded language acquisition, specifically the impact of visual information -- which humans can usually rely on but LMs largely do not have access to during language acquisition -- on syntactic generalization in LMs. Our experiments, following the poverty of stimulus paradigm under two scenarios (using artificial vs. naturalistic images), demonstrate that if the alignments between the linguistic and visual components are clear in the input, access to vision data does help with the syntactic generalization of LMs, but if not, visual input does not help. This highlights the need for additional biases or signals, such as mutual gaze, to enhance cross-modal alignment and enable efficient syntactic generalization in multimodal LMs.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2023.
Builds on
22 of 58 references.
References · 22
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,082
- 2020Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attentioncited by 4,560
- 2021Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generationcited by 4,276
- 2021BEiT: BERT Pre-Training of Image Transformerscited by 2,360
- 2019RandAugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search spacecited by 2,261
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
- 2022What Artificial Neural Networks Can Tell Us About Human Language Acquisitioncited by 97
- 2020Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networkscited by 72
10 more
- 2016Cognitive Science in the era of Artificial Intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learnercited by 68
- 2019Visually Grounded Neural Syntax Acquisitioncited by 48
- 2020Can neural networks acquire a structural bias from raw linguistic data?cited by 35
- 2018Revisiting the poverty of the stimulus: hierarchical generalization without a hierarchical bias in recurrent neural networkscited by 33
- 2022Coloring the Blank Slate: Pre-training Imparts a Hierarchical Inductive Bias to Sequence-to-sequence Modelscited by 28
- 2018Recurrent Neural Networks in Linguistic Theory: Revisiting Pinker and Prince (1988) and the Past Tense Debatecited by 27
- 2021Does Vision-and-Language Pretraining Improve Lexical Grounding?cited by 25
- 2019Compositional Generalization in Image Captioningcited by 23
- 2020What is Learned in Visually Grounded Neural Syntax Acquisitioncited by 15
- 2019A computational model of early language acquisition from audiovisual experiences of young infantscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026LaViSA: A Language and Vision Structural Ambiguity Benchmark17 Jun 2026