MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398231281 · doi:10.1103/physreve.109.054313

Robustness of the random language model

2024· article· en· W4398231281 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatemeh Lalegani, Eric DeGiuli

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceNatural language processingChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The random language model [Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 128301 (2019)0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.122.128301] is an ensemble of stochastic context-free grammars, quantifying the syntax of human and computer languages. The model suggests a simple picture of first-language learning as a type of annealing in the vast space of potential languages. In its simplest formulation, it implies a single continuous transition to grammatical syntax, at which the symmetry among potential words and categories is spontaneously broken. Here this picture is scrutinized by considering its robustness against extensions of the original model, and trajectories through parameter space different from those originally considered. It is shown here that (i) the scenario is robust to explicit symmetry breaking, an inevitable component of learning in the real world, and (ii) the transition to grammatical syntax can be encountered by fixing the deep (hidden) structure while varying the surface (observable) properties. It is also argued that the transition becomes a sharp thermodynamic transition in an idealized limit. Moreover, comparison with human data on the clustering coefficient of syntax networks suggests that the observed transition is equivalent to that normally experienced by children at age 24 months. The results are discussed in light of the theory of first-language acquisition in linguistics, and recent successes in machine learning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207