Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans acquire knowledge about language without direct supervision. LLMs do so by means of specific training objectives, while humans rely on sensory experience and social interaction. This parallelism has created a feeling in NLP and cognitive science that a systematic understanding of how LLMs acquire and use the encoded knowledge, could provide useful insights for studying human cognition. Conversely, methods and findings from the field of cognitive science have occasionally inspired language model development. Yet, the differences in the way that language is processed by machines and humans—in terms of learning mechanisms, amounts of data used, grounding and access to different modalities—make a direct translation of insights challenging. The aim of this edited volume has been to create a forum of exchange and debate along this line of research, inviting contributions that further elucidate similarities and differences between humans and LLMs.

End-to-end neural Natural Language Processing (NLP) models are notoriously difficult to understand. This has given rise to numerous efforts towards model explainability in recent years. One desideratum of model explanation is faithfulness , that is, an explanation should accurately represent the reasoning process behind the model’s prediction. In this survey, we review over 110 model explanation methods in NLP through the lens of faithfulness. We first discuss the definition and evaluation of faithfulness, as well as its significance for explainability. We then introduce recent advances in faithful explanation, grouping existing approaches into five categories: similarity-based methods, analysis of model-internal structures, backpropagation-based methods, counterfactual intervention, and self-explanatory models. For each category, we synthesize its representative studies, strengths, and weaknesses. Finally, we summarize their common virtues and remaining challenges, and reflect on future work directions towards faithful explainability in NLP.

Vector-based word representation paradigms situate lexical meaning at different levels of abstraction. Distributional and static embedding models generate a single vector per word type, which is an aggregate across the instances of the word in a corpus. Contextual language models, on the contrary, directly capture the meaning of individual word instances. The goal of this survey is to provide an overview of word meaning representation methods, and of the strategies that have been proposed for improving the quality of the generated vectors. These often involve injecting external knowledge about lexical semantic relationships, or refining the vectors to describe different senses. The survey also covers recent approaches for obtaining word type-level representations from token-level ones, and for combining static and contextualized representations. Special focus is given to probing and interpretation studies aimed at discovering the lexical semantic knowledge that is encoded in contextualized representations. The challenges posed by this exploration have motivated the interest towards static embedding derivation from contextualized embeddings, and for methods aimed at improving the similarity estimates that can be drawn from the space of contextual language models.

Word sense disambiguation and the related field of automated word sense induction traditionally assume that the occurrences of a lemma can be partitioned into senses. But this seems to be a much easier task for some lemmas than others. Our work builds on recent work that proposes describing word meaning in a graded fashion rather than through a strict partition into senses; in this article we argue that not all lemmas may need the more complex graded analysis, depending on their partitionability. Although there is plenty of evidence from previous studies and from the linguistics literature that there is a spectrum of partitionability of word meanings, this is the first attempt to measure the phenomenon and to couple the machine learning literature on clusterability with word usage data used in computational linguistics. We propose to operationalize partitionability as clusterability, a measure of how easy the occurrences of a lemma are to cluster. We test two ways of measuring clusterability: (1) existing measures from the machine learning literature that aim to measure the goodness of optimal k-means clusterings, and (2) the idea that if a lemma is more clusterable, two clusterings based on two different “views” of the same data points will be more congruent. The two views that we use are two different sets of manually constructed lexical substitutes for the target lemma, on the one hand monolingual paraphrases, and on the other hand translations. We apply automatic clustering to the manual annotations. We use manual annotations because we want the representations of the instances that we cluster to be as informative and “clean” as possible. We show that when we control for polysemy, our measures of clusterability tend to correlate with partitionability, in particular some of the type-(1) clusterability measures, and that these measures outperform a baseline that relies on the amount of overlap in a soft clustering.