mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Spelling convention sensitivity in neural language models

arXiv 2303.03457 ↗First posted 6 Mar 2023cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We examine whether large neural language models, trained on very large collections of varied English text, learn the potentially long-distance dependency of British versus American spelling conventions, i.e., whether spelling is consistently one or the other within model-generated strings. In contrast to long-distance dependencies in non-surface underlying structure (e.g., syntax), spelling consistency is easier to measure both in LMs and the text corpora used to train them, which can provide additional insight into certain observed model behaviors. Using a set of probe words unique to either British or American English, we first establish that training corpora exhibit substantial (though not total) consistency. A large T5 language model does appear to internalize this consistency, though only with respect to observed lexical items (not nonce words with British/American spelling patterns). We further experiment with correcting for biases in the training data by fine-tuning T5 on synthetic data that has been debiased, and find that finetuned T5 remains only somewhat sensitive to spelling consistency. Further experiments show GPT2 to be similarly limited.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2023.

Builds on

15 of 31 references.

References · 15

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  3. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,989
  4. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
  5. 2020Exploiting Cloze Questions for Few Shot Text Classification and Natural Language Inferencecited by 938
  6. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 442
  7. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
  8. 2021Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of their Prompts?cited by 326
  9. 2013One Billion Word Benchmark for Measuring Progress in Statistical Language Modelingcited by 308
  10. 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 213
  11. 2019BERT for Coreference Resolution: Baselines and Analysiscited by 125
  12. 2019Open Sesame: Getting Inside BERT's Linguistic Knowledgecited by 120
3 more
  1. 2016Deep Reinforcement Learning for Mention-Ranking Coreference Modelscited by 63
  2. 2020Processing South Asian Languages Written in the Latin Script: the Dakshina Datasetcited by 35
  3. 2018RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependencycited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.