Talk:Language model

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force. Statistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

what about non statistical language models, like cfgs? 84.162.237.4 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

PCFG can also be used as a language model, and its performance is said to be worse than n-gram, though I doubt it. Took (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point! I added a bit on Formal grammars. Thanks. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Isnt the term language models in Information Retrieval used a little differently from the NLP interpretation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEdu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302151523/http://www-speech.sri.com/projects/srilm/ to http://www-speech.sri.com/projects/srilm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Recent changes in the page have replaced the word "neural" (as in "neural net language models") to "neuronal", saying that the latter is the adjective form of "neuron". While that might be true, the change is completely wrong on several accounts:

1. The generally accepted term is "neural net". Nobody uses "neuronal".
2. The WP page is also titled "Artificial neural network". The change to "neuronal" here is inconsistent with the wording there or elsewhere on WP.
3. Even in biology, where the inspiration comes from, the network is called neural. That it is made up of neurons is a secondary detail.

I do not wish to start an edit war, so I would like to ask the editors to step in and change "neuronal" back to "neural". As I understand, WP aims to be an impartial encyclopedia, and certainly, using the established terms is part of that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.22.138 (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good point. Thankfully, that abberation is long gone. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Non-RNN attention-based Transformer model, as well as models based on it (e.g. BERT, GPT, GPT-3), are not covered in the article's text. Could anybody cover them accordingly please? Thank you in advace, --Olexa Riznyk (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The section on unigram models is needlessly complicated: these are simple Bernoulli models, there is no need to bring in Finite State Automata at all. But before removing the unnecessary complexity I'd like to ask if anybody recalls why it was put there in the first place, maybe I'm missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnoTraveller (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

GPT-2 is not a recurrent neural network, but rather based on Transformer attention based architecture. Would be nice if somebody provided truthfull critical view, because there are plenty of issues in the idea of posing language learning as pure statistical problem. There is real danger that common people will missinterpret the output of such models as it happens with almost every other deep learning architecture. [citation needed] 31.182.202.212 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "notable language models" section currently contains a number of models which are not language models per se, but rather involve a language component (including text-to speech and text-to-image models). I'm removing these, and will probably merge the contents with the table at Large language model, since the list doesn't seem to include any LMs that aren't LLMs.

For posterity, here's a permalink to the section as it existed before I gutted it. It might be useful if someone ever wants to create a list like List of natural language processing models or something. Colin M (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This page is an example of the smartypants way Wikipedia is heading. if you don’t have any idea what it is, the dictionaries around don’t make it clear, I come here and it’s no better ! is it a computer program or a machine? It sure as hell isn’t literally a ‘model’ ! 2A00:23C7:E1F1:301:CB6:1142:871C:F9 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The type of "model" is now linked in the first sentence. It is a statistical model of language. Statistical relationships between patterns of words or tokens can be stored on a machine and accessed by computer programs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply