Small Language Models Also Work With Small Vocabularies: Probing the Linguistic Abilities of Grapheme- and Phoneme-Based Baby Llamas (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies on LMs have focused on linguistic generalizations and representations from developmentally plausible data. |
| Approach: | They propose to use phoneme- and grapheme-based language models to learn linguistic units at and below the word level. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can achieve strong performance on syntactic and novel benchmarks and match grapheme-based models in standard tasks and novel evaluations. |
Similar Papers
Language Adaptation of Large Language Models: An Empirical Study on LLaMA2 (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) has seen a skyrocketing increase in recent years. |
| Approach: | They present a systematic review of the language adaptation process for Large Language Models including vocabulary expansion, continued pre-training, and instruction fine-tuning. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is based on empirical studies conducted on LLaMA2 and discussions on various settings affecting the model's capabilities. |
One Size Does Not Fit All: Comparing NMT Representations of Different Granularities (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work has shown that contextualized word representations are a viable alternative to simple word prediction tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose to use subword units and characters to model morphology, syntax, and semantics instead of word embeddings. |
| Outcome: | The proposed representations are better for modeling syntax and more robust to noisy input. |
How Do Language Models Acquire Character-Level Information? (2026.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Language models (LMs) implicitly encode character-level information, despite not being explicitly provided during training. |
| Approach: | They analyze how language models acquire character-level knowledge by comparing them to standard settings. |
| Outcome: | The results show that LMs do not treat words as opaque tokens, but instead treat them as tokens. |
Subword models struggle with word learning, but surprisal hides it (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Subword LMs struggle to discern words and non-words with high accuracy, character LM models do this easily and consistently. |
| Approach: | They propose to model word learning in subword and character language models with the psycholinguistic lexical decision task. |
| Outcome: | The results suggest that word learning and syntactic learning are separable in character LMs. |
Unlike “Likely”, “Unlike” is Unlikely: BPE-based Segmentation hurts Morphological Derivations in LLMs (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) use subword vocabularies to process and generate text. |
| Approach: | They find that Large Language Models (LLMs) perform poorly at handling some types of affixations because subwords are marked as initial- or intra-word . |
| Outcome: | The largest models trained on enough data can mitigate this tendency because initial- and intra-word embeddings are aligned; in-context learning also helps when all examples are selected in a consistent way; but only morphological segmentation can achieve a near-perfect accuracy. |
A Multi-dimensional Evaluation of Tokenizer-free Multilingual Pretrained Models (2023.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work on tokenizer-free models shows promising results in cross-lingual transfer . previous work focused on reporting accuracy on a limited set of tasks and data settings . |
| Approach: | They compare tokenizer-free and subword-based models using various dimensions . they find subword models are still the most practical choice in many settings . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves cross-lingual transfer and reduces engineering overhead. |
Small Models, Big Impact: Efficient Corpus and Graph-Based Adaptation of Small Multilingual Language Models for Low-Resource Languages (2025.acl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Low-resource languages (LRLs) face significant challenges in natural language processing due to limited data. |
| Approach: | They evaluate adapter-based methods for adapting mLMs to low-resource languages . they use unstructured text and structured knowledge from ConceptNet to evaluate adapters . |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods outperform large language models and LLaMA-3 and deepSeek-R1 models on low training data. |
Improving Spoken Language Modeling with Phoneme Classification: A Simple Fine-tuning Approach (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Generating speech through a pipeline that operates at the text level typically loses nuances, intonations, and non-verbal vocalizations. |
| Approach: | They show that fine-tuning speech representation models on phoneme classification leads to more context-invariant representations, and language models trained on these units achieve comparable lexical comprehension to ones trained on hundred times more data. |
| Outcome: | Recent advances in speech representation modeling have shown that learning language directly from speech is feasible. |
Do Language Models Perform Generalizable Commonsense Inference? (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work has applied pretrained language models to populate commonsense knowledge graphs (CKGs) but there is a lack of understanding on their generalization to multiple CKGs, unseen relations, and novel entities. |
| Approach: | They analyze the ability of pretrained language models to perform generalizable commonsense inference in terms of knowledge capacity, transferability and induction. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can adapt to different schemas defined by multiple CKGs but fail to generalize to new relations. |
Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Modern neural language models (LMs) require distinctly un-human-like ways to achieve these results. |
| Approach: | They train a diverse set of LM architectures with and without auxiliary visual supervision on datasets of varying scales. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models exhibit better learning of syntactic categories, lexical relations, semantic features, word similarity and alignment with human neural representations. |