Is Child-Directed Speech Effective Training Data for Language Models?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While high-performing language models are typically trained on hundreds of billions of words, human children become fluent language users with a much smaller amount of data.What are the features of the data they receive, and how do these features support language modeling objectives?To investigate this question, we train GPT-2 and RoBERTa models on 29M words of English child-directed speech and a new matched, synthetic dataset (TinyDialogues), comparing to OpenSubtitles, Wikipedia, and a heterogeneous blend of datasets from the BabyLM challenge.We evaluate the syntactic and semantic knowledge of these models using developmentallyinspired evaluations.Through pretraining experiments, we test whether the global developmental ordering or the local discourse ordering of children's training data supports high performance relative to other datasets.The local properties of the data affect model results, but surprisingly, global properties do not.Further, child language input is not uniquely valuable for training language models.These findings support the hypothesis that, rather than proceeding from better data, the child's learning algorithm is substantially more data-efficient than current language modeling techniques.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".