2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0303-2647(00)00079-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Natural language from function dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, we expect that fundamental structures underlying natural language can be anatomized by analyzing the dynamics of the pre-trained ALBERT model. There have been several works that attempt to analyze the structure of natural language using dynamical systems theory [10][11][12] and chaotic dynamics [13][14][15][16]. Our study aims to advance these dynamical systems approaches to understand natural language, by using the up-to-date machine learning model.…”
Section: A Albert As "The Reservoir"mentioning
confidence: 99%

Transient Chaos in BERT

Inoue,
Ohara,
Kuniyoshi
et al. 2021
Preprint
“…Therefore, we expect that fundamental structures underlying natural language can be anatomized by analyzing the dynamics of the pre-trained ALBERT model. There have been several works that attempt to analyze the structure of natural language using dynamical systems theory [10][11][12] and chaotic dynamics [13][14][15][16]. Our study aims to advance these dynamical systems approaches to understand natural language, by using the up-to-date machine learning model.…”
Section: A Albert As "The Reservoir"mentioning
confidence: 99%

Transient Chaos in BERT

Inoue,
Ohara,
Kuniyoshi
et al. 2021
Preprint
“…Around the same time, similar methodologies became popular to study the dynamics of language change, i.e. the replacement of already established conventions, both in general (Niyogi andBerwick, 1995, 1997;Arita and Koyama, 1998;Nettle, 1999;Kataoka and Kaneko, 2000;Livingstone, 2000;Ritt, 2004;De Oliveira et al, 2005;Niyogi, 2006;Wedel, 2006;Baxter et al, 2006;Wedel, 2007;Ettlinger, 2007a,b;Fagyal et al, 2010;Blythe and Croft, 2012;Gong et al, 2012;Otero-Espinar et al, 2013;Sóskuthy, 2013;Pierrehumbert et al, 2014;Enke et al, 2016;Kauhanen and Walkden, 2015) as well as for some specific historical changes in particular (Yang, 2002;Choudhury et al, 2006Choudhury et al, , 2007Pearl and Weinberg, 2007;Troutman et al, 2008;Baxter et al, 2009;Sonderegger and Niyogi, 2010;Swarup and McCarthy, 2012;Ritt and Baumann, 2012;Kirby, 2013;Kirby and Sonderegger, 2013).…”
Section: Why Model?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following an analogy with language, elementary CA rules act like words which are used in PICARD macroexecutions. Using a functional-dynamics framework as a model for the evolution of natural language, Kataoka and Kaneko (2000b) show how self-referencing function dynamics can act like a filter that produces a corpus of words that are each fixed points of the dynamical model. The invariant macrostate CA rules that we describe are qualitatively similar to this idea, and their representation is consistent with measured distributions of words in actual natural language.…”
Section: A Picard Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%