Synthetic linguistic data

This study compares the impact of natural and synthetic data on training and evaluating large language models (LLMs), using the case of passive verb alternation in French and Italian. We use Blackbird Language Matrices (BLMs), structured datasets designed to probe linguistic knowledge of underlying patterns across sentence sets. We compare structured templates instantiated with natural sentences extracted from Universal Dependencies to structured templates of synthetic sentences. Experiments show that while models achieve ceiling performance when trained and tested on synthetic datasets, they do not reliably generalize to natural sentences. In contrast, models trained on natural data exhibit robust performance across both natural and synthetic test suites, demonstrating their superior ability to capture abstract linguistic patterns. These results corroborate the value of natural data and of structured set ups in linguistic evaluation for probing LLMs' syntactic and semantic knowledge.

Synthetic data has become a common resource for training language models, and this trend has spilled over into research on developmentally plausible language modeling. However, it remains unclear whether LM-generated child-adult interactions actually resemble natural ones. We compare the synthetic TinyDialogues dataset to natural dialogue across a broad range of linguistic measures. While synthetic data matches natural data on the lexical level, it drastically underestimates the messy, fragmented nature of spoken interaction. To mitigate this, we propose instruction-tuning with data created from real dialogues, and show in a pilot study that a small model approximates the statistical tendencies of natural data after moderate parameter-efficient fine-tuning.

We present a methodological framework to discover linguistic and discursive patterns associated to different social groups through contrastive synthetic text generation and statistical analysis. In contrast with previous approaches, we aim to characterize subtle expressions of bias, instead of diagnosing bias through a pre-determined list of words or expressions. We are also working with contextualized data instead of isolated words or sentences. Our methodology applies to textual productions in any genre, encompassing narrative, task-oriented or dialogic. Contextualized data are generated using controlled combinations of situational scenarios and group markers, creating minimal pairs of texts that differ only in the referenced group while maintaining comparable narrative conditions. To facilitate robust analysis, linguistic forms are generalized and associations between linguistic abstractions and groups are quantified using a variant of pointwise mutual information to detect expressions that appear disproportionately across groups. A fragment-ranking strategy then prioritizes text segments with a high concentration of biased linguistic signals, which allows for experts to assess the harmful potential of linguistic expressions in context, bridging quantitative analysis and qualitative interpretation.