Large language models (LLMs), currently their most advanced form[when?], are predominantly based on transformers trained on larger datasets (frequently using texts scraped from the public internet). They have superseded recurrent neural network-based models, which had previously superseded the purely statistical models, such as the word n-gram language model.
In 1980, statistical approaches were explored and found to be more useful for many purposes than rule-based formal grammars. Discrete representations like word n-gram language models, with probabilities for discrete combinations of words, made significant advances.
In the 2000s, continuous representations for words, such as word embeddings, began to replace discrete representations.[11] Typically, the representation is a real-valued vector that encodes the meaning of the word in such a way that the words that are closer in the vector space are expected to be similar in meaning, and common relationships between pairs of words like plurality or gender.
Pure statistical models
In 1980, the first significant statistical language model was proposed, and during the decade IBM performed 'Shannon-style' experiments, in which potential sources for language modeling improvement were identified by observing and analyzing the performance of human subjects in predicting or correcting text.[12]
A word n-gram language model is a purely statistical model of language. It has been superseded by recurrent neural network-based models, which have been superseded by large language models. [13] It is based on an assumption that the probability of the next word in a sequence depends only on a fixed size window of previous words. If only one previous word was considered, it was called a bigram model; if two words, a trigram model; if n − 1 words, an n-gram model.[14] Special tokens were introduced to denote the start and end of a sentence and .
To prevent a zero probability being assigned to unseen words, each word's probability is slightly lower than its frequency count in a corpus. To calculate it, various methods were used, from simple "add-one" smoothing (assign a count of 1 to unseen n-grams, as an uninformative prior) to more sophisticated models, such as Good–Turing discounting or back-off models.
Exponential
Maximum entropy language models encode the relationship between a word and the n-gram history using feature functions. The equation is
where is the partition function, is the parameter vector, and is the feature function. In the simplest case, the feature function is just an indicator of the presence of a certain n-gram. It is helpful to use a prior on or some form of regularization.
The log-bilinear model is another example of an exponential language model.
Continuous representations or embeddings of words are produced in recurrent neural network-based language models (known also as continuous space language models).[15] Such continuous space embeddings help to alleviate the curse of dimensionality, which is the consequence of the number of possible sequences of words increasing exponentially with the size of the vocabulary, further causing a data sparsity problem. Neural networks avoid this problem by representing words as non-linear combinations of weights in a neural net.[16]
They consist of billions to trillions of parameters and operate as general-purpose sequence models, generating, summarizing, translating, and reasoning over text. LLMs represent a significant new technology in their ability to generalize across tasks with minimal task-specific supervision, enabling capabilities like conversational agents, code generation, knowledge retrieval, and automated reasoning that previously required bespoke systems.[22]
LLMs evolved from earlier statistical and recurrent neural network approaches to language modeling. The transformer architecture, introduced in 2017, replaced recurrence with self-attention, allowing efficient parallelization, longer context handling, and scalable training on unprecedented data volumes.[23] This innovation enabled models like GPT, BERT, and their successors, which demonstrated emergent behaviors at scale such as few-shot learning and compositional reasoning.[24]
Reinforcement learning, particularly policy gradient algorithms, has been adapted to fine-tune LLMs for desired behaviors beyond raw next-token prediction.[25]Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) applies these methods to optimize a policy, the LLM's output distribution, against reward signals derived from human or automated preference judgments.[26] This has been critical for aligning model outputs with user expectations, improving factuality, reducing harmful responses, and enhancing task performance.
Benchmark evaluations for LLMs have evolved from narrow linguistic assessments toward comprehensive, multi-task evaluations measuring reasoning, factual accuracy, alignment, and safety.[27][28]Hill climbing, iteratively optimizing models against benchmarks, has emerged as a dominant strategy, producing rapid incremental performance gains but raising concerns of overfitting to benchmarks rather than achieving genuine generalization or robust capability improvements.[29]
Although sometimes matching human performance, it is not clear whether they are plausible cognitive models. At least for recurrent neural networks, it has been shown that they sometimes learn patterns that humans do not, but fail to learn patterns that humans typically do.[30]
Evaluation and benchmarks
Evaluation of the quality of language models is mostly done by comparison to human created sample benchmarks created from typical language-oriented tasks. Other, less established, quality tests examine the intrinsic character of a language model or compare two such models. Since language models are typically intended to be dynamic and to learn from data they see, some proposed models investigate the rate of learning, e.g., through inspection of learning curves.[31]
Various data sets have been developed for use in evaluating language processing systems.[32] These include:
Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU)[33]
↑Blank, Idan A. (November 2023). "What are large language models supposed to model?". Trends in Cognitive Sciences27 (11): 987–989. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.006. PMID37659920."LLMs are supposed to model how utterances behave."
↑Andreas, Jacob, Andreas Vlachos, and Stephen Clark (2013). "Semantic parsing as machine translation" . Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers).
↑Ponte, Jay M.; Croft, W. Bruce (1998). "A language modeling approach to information retrieval". Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGIR Conference. Melbourne, Australia: ACM. pp. 275–281. doi:10.1145/290941.291008.
↑Hiemstra, Djoerd (1998). "A linguistically motivated probabilistically model of information retrieval". Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. LNCS, Springer. pp. 569–584. doi:10.1007/3-540-49653-X_34.
↑Chomsky, N. (September 1956). "Three models for the description of language". IRE Transactions on Information Theory2 (3): 113–124. doi:10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813. ISSN2168-2712.
↑Bommasani, Rishi; Hudson, Drew A.; Adeli, Ehsan; Altman, Russ; Arora, Simran; von Arx, Matthew; Bernstein, Michael S.; Bohg, Jeannette et al. (2021). On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models.
↑Kaplan, Jared; McCandlish, Sam; Henighan, Tom; Brown, Tom B.; Chess, Benjamin; Child, Rewon; Gray, Scott; Radford, Alec; Wu, Jeffrey; Amodei, Dario (2020). "Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models". arXiv:2001.08361 [cs.LG].
↑Vaswani, Ashish; Shazeer, Noam; Parmar, Niki; Uszkoreit, Jakob; Jones, Llion; Gomez, Aidan N; Kaiser, Łukasz; Polosukhin, Illia (2017). "Attention is All you Need". arXiv:1706.03762 [cs.CL].
↑Devlin, Jacob; Chang, Ming-Wei; Lee, Kenton; Toutanova, Kristina (2018). "BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding". arXiv:1810.04805 [cs.CL].
↑Christiano, Paul; Leike, Jan; Brown, Tom B.; Martic, Miljan; Legg, Shane; Amodei, Dario (2017). "Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences". arXiv:1706.03741 [stat.ML].
↑Ouyang, Long; Wu, Jeff; Jiang, Xu; Almeida, Diogo; Wainwright, Carroll; Mishkin, Pamela; Zhang, Chong; Agarwal, Sandhini; Slama, Katarina; Ray, Alex (2022). "Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback". arXiv:2203.02155 [cs.CL].
↑Wang, Alex; Singh, Amanpreet; Michael, Julian; Hill, Felix; Levy, Omer; Bowman, Samuel R. (2018). "GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding". arXiv:1804.07461 [cs.CL].
↑Hendrycks, Dan; Burns, Collin; Basart, Steven; Zou, Andy; Mazeika, Mantas; Song, Dawn; Steinhardt, Jacob (2020). Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding.
↑Karlgren, Jussi; Schutze, Hinrich (2015), "Evaluating Learning Language Representations", International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing, pp. 254–260, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64206-2_8, ISBN978-3-319-64205-5
↑Devlin, Jacob; Chang, Ming-Wei; Lee, Kenton; Toutanova, Kristina (2018-10-10). "BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding". arXiv:1810.04805 [cs.CL].
↑Aghaebrahimian, Ahmad (2017), "Quora Question Answer Dataset", Text, Speech, and Dialogue, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10415, Springer International Publishing, pp. 66–73, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64206-2_8, ISBN978-3-319-64205-5