跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.04421 · v1

Typological Feature Induction as a Benchmark for Inductive Metalinguistic Reasoning

首次提交 2026-11-03 15:06
版本更新 2026-11-03 15:06
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Existing metalinguistic reasoning benchmarks require both inference of rules and their application, making failures hard to diagnose. We introduce typological feature induction (TFI) which targets the former step. Given sentences in an unnamed language paired with translations in a known pivot language, models must predict a typological feature of the unnamed language. From Grambank and multi-parallel corpora, we automatically build evaluation questions over 195 languages. We find that LLMs identify 59--80% of these languages from only 16 sentence pairs; and misaligning the translations barely affects their accuracy, suggesting reliance on prior knowledge of the language. Enciphering text to prevent recognition increases the corpus' utility, but mainly for features where target and pivot languages agree. On languages which models cannot identify, neither open model outperforms a majority-value baseline. Since induction from raw text aligns with field linguists' use-case, this work indicates the models tested are not yet ready for this role. TFI offers a scalable path to track progress in this direction.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-03 15:06 · 最新观测版本

Typological Feature Induction as a Benchmark for Inductive Metalinguistic Reasoning

Existing metalinguistic reasoning benchmarks require both inference of rules and their application, making failures hard to diagnose. We introduce typological feature induction (TFI) which targets the former step. Given sentences in an unnamed language paired with translations in a known pivot language, models must predict a typological feature of the unnamed language. From Grambank and multi-parallel corpora, we automatically build evaluation questions over 195 languages. We find that LLMs identify 59--80% of these languages from only 16 sentence pairs; and misaligning the translations barely affects their accuracy, suggesting reliance on prior knowledge of the language. Enciphering text to prevent recognition increases the corpus' utility, but mainly for features where target and pivot languages agree. On languages which models cannot identify, neither open model outperforms a majority-value baseline. Since induction from raw text aligns with field linguists' use-case, this work indicates the models tested are not yet ready for this role. TFI offers a scalable path to track progress in this direction.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗