user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Grammatical Analysis of Pretrained Sentence Encoders with Acceptability Judgments

Paper content:
Recent pretrained sentence encoders achieve state of the art results on language understanding tasks, but does this mean they have implicit knowledge of syntactic structures?
We introduce a grammatically annotated development set for the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA; Warstadt et al., 2018), which we use to investigate the grammatical knowledge of three pretrained encoders, including the popular OpenAI Transformer (Radford et al., 2018) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2018).
We fine-tune these encoders to do acceptability classification over CoLA and compare the models’ performance on the annotated analysis set.
Some phenomena, e.g. modification by adjuncts, are easy to learn for all models, while others, e.g. long-distance movement, are learned effectively only by models with strong overall performance, and others still, e.g. morphological agreement, are hardly learned by any model.
The effectiveness and ubiquity of pretrained sentence embeddings for natural language understanding has grown dramatically in recent years.
Recent sentence encoders like OpenAI's Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT; Radford et al., 2018) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) achieve the state of the art on the GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018) .
Among the GLUE tasks, these stateof-the-art systems make their greatest gains on the acceptability task with the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA; Warstadt et al., 2018) .
CoLA contains example sentences from linguistics publications labeled by experts for grammatical acceptability, and written to show subtle grammatical features.
Because minimal syntactic differences can separate acceptable sentences from unacceptable ones (What did Bo write a book about? / *What was a book about written by Bo?), and acceptability classifiers are more reliable when trained on GPT and BERT than on recurrent models, it stands to reason that GPT and BERT have better implicit knowledge of syntactic features relevant to acceptability.Our goal in this paper is to develop an evaluation dataset that can locate which syntactic features that a model successfully learns by identifying the syntactic domains of CoLA in which it performs the best.
Using this evaluation set, we compare the syntactic knowledge of GPT and BERT in detail, and investigate the strengths of these models over the baseline BiLSTM model published by Warstadt et al. (2018) .
The analysis set includes expert annotations labeling the entire CoLA development set for the presence of 63 fine-grained syntactic features.We identify many specific syntactic features that make sentences harder to classify, and many that have little effect.
For instance, sentences involving unusual or marked argument structures are no harder than the average sentence, while sentences with long distance dependencies are hard to learn.
We also find features of sentences that accentuate or minimize the differences between models.
Specifically, the transformer models seem to learn long-distance dependencies much better than the recurrent model, yet have no advantage on sentences with morphological violations.
Using a new grammatically annotated analysis set, we identify several syntactic phenomena that are predictive of good or bad performance of current state of the art sentence encoders on CoLA.
We also use these results to develop hypotheses about why BERT is successful, and why transformer models outperform sequence models.Our findings can guide future work on sentence embeddings.
A current weakness of all sentence encoders we investigate, including BERT, is the identification of morphological violations.
Future engineering work should investigate whether switching to a character-level model can mitigate this problem.
Additionally, transformer models appear to have an advantage over sequence models with long-distance dependencies, but still struggle with these constructions relative to more local phenomena.
It stands to reason that this performance gap might be widened by training larger or deeper transformer models, or training on longer or more complex sentences.
This analysis set can be used by engineers interested in evaluating the syntactic knowledge of their encoders.
Finally, these findings suggest possible controlled experiments that could confirm whether there is a causal relation between the presence of the syntactic features we single out as interesting and model performance.
Our results are purely correlational, and do not mark whether a particular construction is crucial for the acceptability of the sentence.
Future experiments following Ettinger et al. (2018) and Kann et al. (2019) can semi-automatically generate datasets manipulating, for example, length of long-distance dependencies, inflectional violations, or the presence of interrogatives, while controlling for factors like sentence length and word choice, in order determine the extent to which these features impact the quality of sentence embeddings.
(1) Included
a. John owns the book.
(37)
b. Park Square has a festive air.
(131)
c. *Herself likes Mary's mother.
FORMULA0 (2) Excluded
a. Bill has eaten cake.
b. I gave Joe a book.

assistant: text: We investigate the implicit syntactic knowledge of sentence embeddings using a new analysis set of grammatically annotated sentences with acceptability judgments.