Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Computational approaches to the study of language emergence can help us understand how natural languages are shaped by cognitive and sociocultural factors. Previous work focused on tasks where agents refer to a single entity. In contrast, we study how agents predicate, that is, how they express that some relation holds between several entities. We introduce a setup where agents talk about a variable number of entities that can be partially observed by the listener. In the presence of a least-effort pressure, they tend to discuss only entities that are not observed by the listener. Thus we can obtain artificial phrases that denote a single entity, as well as artificial sentences that denote several entities. In natural languages, if we ignore the verb, phrases are usually concatenated, either in a specific order or by adding case markers to form sentences. Our setup allows us to quantify how much this holds in emergent languages using a metric we call concatenability. We also measure transitivity, which quantifies the importance of word order. We demonstrate the usefulness of this new setup and metrics for studying factors that influence argument structure. We compare agents having access to input representations structured into pre-segmented objects with properties, versus unstructured representations. Our results indicate that the awareness of object structure yields a more natural sentence organization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".