Thesis proposal: Are We Losing Textual Diversity to Natural Language Processing?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This thesis argues that the currently widely used Natural Language Processing algorithms possibly have various limitations related to the properties of the texts they handle and produce. With the wide adoption of these tools in rapid progress, we must ask what these limitations are and what are the possible implications of integrating such tools even more deeply into our daily lives. As a testbed, we have chosen the task of Neural Machine Translation (NMT). Nevertheless, we aim for general insights and outcomes, applicable even to current Large Language Models (LLMs). We ask whether the algorithms used in NMT have inherent inductive biases that are beneficial for most types of inputs but might harm the processing of untypical texts. To explore this hypothesis, we define a set of measures to quantify text diversity based on its statistical properties, like uniformity or rhythmicity of word-level surprisal, on multiple scales (sentence, discourse, language). We then conduct a series of experiments to investigate whether NMT systems struggle with maintaining the diversity of such texts, potentially reducing the richness of the language generated by these systems, compared to human translators. We search for potential causes of these limitations rooted in training objectives and decoding algorithms. Our ultimate goal is to develop alternatives that do not enforce uniformity in the distribution of statistical properties in the output and that allow for better global planning of the translation, taking into account the intrinsic ambiguity of the translation task.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2024.
Builds on
38 of 75 references.
References · 38
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
- 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,041
- 2022Diffusion-LM Improves Controllable Text Generationcited by 1,006
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 952
- 2015Sequence Level Training with Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 568
- 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 334
- 2018Blockwise Parallel Decoding for Deep Autoregressive Modelscited by 318
- 2022CometKiwi: IST-Unbabel 2022 Submission for the Quality Estimation Shared Taskcited by 205
- 2020Is MAP Decoding All You Need? The Inadequacy of the Mode in Neural Machine Translationcited by 137
- 2018Analyzing Uncertainty in Neural Machine Translationcited by 126
26 more
- 2023Future Lens: Anticipating Subsequent Tokens from a Single Hidden Statecited by 116
- 2019On NMT Search Errors and Model Errors: Cat Got Your Tongue?cited by 114
- 2020If beam search is the answer, what was the question?cited by 114
- 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 111
- 2021High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metricscited by 104
- 2023The Curious Decline of Linguistic Diversity: Training Language Models on Synthetic Textcited by 97
- 2022Text Generation with Diffusion Language Models: A Pre-training Approach with Continuous Paragraph Denoisecited by 79
- 2023Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loopcited by 75
- 2021Machine Translationese: Effects of Algorithmic Bias on Linguistic Complexity in Machine Translationcited by 70
- 2021Sampling-Based Approximations to Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding for Neural Machine Translationcited by 63
- 2021Revisiting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesiscited by 63
- 2021Understanding the Properties of Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding in Neural Machine Translationcited by 56
- 2019Lost in Translation: Loss and Decay of Linguistic Richness in Machine Translationcited by 45
- 2018Sentence-Level Fluency Evaluation: References Help, But Can Be Spared!cited by 43
- 2022Identifying Weaknesses in Machine Translation Metrics Through Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding: A Case Study for COMETcited by 41
- 2023CodeFusion: A Pre-trained Diffusion Model for Code Generationcited by 31
- 2019Post-editese: an Exacerbated Translationesecited by 29
- 2019Global Voices: Crossing Borders in Automatic News Summarizationcited by 20
- 2019An Empirical Investigation of Global and Local Normalization for Recurrent Neural Sequence Models Using a Continuous Relaxation to Beam Searchcited by 12
- 2021A Cognitive Regularizer for Language Modelingcited by 11
- 2022Jam or Cream First? Modeling Ambiguity in Neural Machine Translation with SCONEScited by 10
- 2022Uncertainty Determines the Adequacy of the Mode and the Tractability of Decoding in Sequence-to-Sequence Modelscited by 9
- 2023Breeding Machine Translations: Evolutionary approach to survive and thrive in the world of automated evaluationcited by 5
- 2019Learning document embeddings along with their uncertaintiescited by 4
- 2022CUNI Submission in WMT22 General Taskcited by 2
- 2023Assessing Word Importance Using Models Trained for Semantic Taskscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.