Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

Why do language models perform worse for morphologically complex languages?

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11320%2F26%3AIBFTT2E4" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11320/26:IBFTT2E4 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Výsledek na webu

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

    Why do language models perform worse for morphologically complex languages?

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    Language models perform differently across languages. It has been previously suggested that morphological typology may explain some of this variability (Cotterell et al., 2018). We replicate previous analyses and find additional new evidence for a performance gap between agglutinative and fusional languages, where fusional languages, such as English, tend to have better language modeling performance than morphologically more complex languages like Turkish. We then propose and test three possible causes for this performance gap: morphological alignment of tokenizers, tokenization quality, and disparities in dataset sizes and measurement. To test the morphological alignment hypothesis, we present MorphScore, a tokenizer evaluation metric, and supporting datasets for 22 languages. We find some evidence that tokenization quality explains the performance gap, but none for the role of morphological alignment. Instead we find that the performance gap is most reduced when training datasets are of equivalent size across language types, but only when scaled according to the so-called “byte-premium”-the different encoding efficiencies of different languages and orthographies. These results suggest that languages of particular morphological types are not intrinsically advantaged or disadvantaged in language modeling. Differences in performance can be attributed to disparities in dataset size. These findings bear on ongoing efforts to improve performance for low-performing and under-resourced languages. © 2025 Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

    Why do language models perform worse for morphologically complex languages?

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    Language models perform differently across languages. It has been previously suggested that morphological typology may explain some of this variability (Cotterell et al., 2018). We replicate previous analyses and find additional new evidence for a performance gap between agglutinative and fusional languages, where fusional languages, such as English, tend to have better language modeling performance than morphologically more complex languages like Turkish. We then propose and test three possible causes for this performance gap: morphological alignment of tokenizers, tokenization quality, and disparities in dataset sizes and measurement. To test the morphological alignment hypothesis, we present MorphScore, a tokenizer evaluation metric, and supporting datasets for 22 languages. We find some evidence that tokenization quality explains the performance gap, but none for the role of morphological alignment. Instead we find that the performance gap is most reduced when training datasets are of equivalent size across language types, but only when scaled according to the so-called “byte-premium”-the different encoding efficiencies of different languages and orthographies. These results suggest that languages of particular morphological types are not intrinsically advantaged or disadvantaged in language modeling. Differences in performance can be attributed to disparities in dataset size. These findings bear on ongoing efforts to improve performance for low-performing and under-resourced languages. © 2025 Association for Computational Linguistics.

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    D - Stať ve sborníku

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    10201 - Computer sciences, information science, bioinformathics (hardware development to be 2.2, social aspect to be 5.8)

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2025

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název statě ve sborníku

    Proc. Main Conf. Int. Conf. Comput. Linguist., COLING

  • ISBN

    979-8-89176-196-4

  • ISSN

  • e-ISSN

  • Počet stran výsledku

    17

  • Strana od-do

    6607-6623

  • Název nakladatele

    Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

  • Místo vydání

  • Místo konání akce

    Abu Dhabi

  • Datum konání akce

    1. 1. 2026

  • Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

    WRD - Celosvětová akce

  • Kód UT WoS článku