The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2606.05087v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Frequent verbs such as 'have' and 'make' can function either as collocates in light-verb constructions or as full lexical predicates, as in 'make a...
The paper investigates why AI-generated text has become harder to understand, focusing on psycholinguistic features linked to human processing difficulty such as object relative clauses, long syntactic dependencies, and low-frequency n-grams. Using a new corpus of AI-generated text from diverse domains, the study finds that frontier and near-frontier language models employ these difficult features more frequently than paraphrases from round-trip translation and human writing, including more inanimate subjects with animate verbs, longer dependencies, stacked nouns, and reduced object relatives. The authors hypothesize that AI models prioritize information density for tasks like math, code, and reasoning, diverging from human communication goals, and demonstrate this by fine‑tuning a model with a length penalty, which reduces human‑like linguistic behavior.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle two usage‑based grammatical strategies: coercion, where a mismatched word is reinterpreted to fit its context, and preemption, where a plausible structure is avoided because it never appears in expected contexts. Experiments across models of varying sizes show that larger LLMs successfully recognize and produce constructional productivity in coercive situations, even with novel words, but they fail to exhibit preemptive behavior, lacking the negative evidence that would guide avoidance of unconventional but semantically viable constructions. The authors argue that coercion is detectable due to its surprising, semantically motivated nature, whereas preemption lacks such a signature, leading to an asymmetry where models coerce but do not preempt.
Large language models are typically trained with next-token prediction (NTP), which rewards predicting specific tokens rather than explicitly accounting for the semantic similarities between different...
The study investigates how augmenting training data with conceptually related alternatives—beyond nouns to include verbs and adjectives—affects large language models trained with next-token prediction. Results show that while concept augmentation consistently improves perplexity on news data regardless of part of speech, verbs yield the most reliable downstream performance gains. Representational analyses reveal that the conditions producing the largest downstream improvements do not always correspond to the greatest changes in internal representations.
The paper examines how language models learn action nominal constructions (ANCs) across 96 synthetic target languages with varied grammatical features. Using GPT‑2‑small trained from scratch, the study evaluates models on minimal pairs covering 34 grammatical phenomena, revealing that models mirror typological patterns in basic clause configurations but diverge in complement systems and ANC strategies. The findings suggest that natural language distributions may arise from both general learning pressures and functional demands not fully captured by current model experiments.