arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Diverging Transformer Predictions for Human Sentence Processing: A Comprehensive Analysis of Agreement Attraction Effects

The study evaluates eleven autoregressive transformer models on English agreement attraction scenarios using a surprisal-based approach. Results show that while transformers match human reading times for prepositional phrase configurations, they perform poorly on object‑extracted relative clauses, with predictions diverging across models and failing to capture human interference patterns. The authors argue that current transformers cannot adequately model human morphosyntactic processing and call for more rigorous, comprehensive testing to avoid misleading conclusions from limited syntactic setups.

By Titus von der Malsburg, Sebastian Pad\'o
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 7

A theory of platonic representations in language models

arXiv:2610.07168v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Representations of translated sentences are similar in the inner layers of multilingual language models -- an observation connected to the platonic rep...

By Darshil Doshi, Wenjie Zhou, Corinna Elena Wegner, Daniel J. Korchinski, Santiago Acevedo, Matthieu Wyart
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Comparing Latent Concept Formation in State Space Models and Transformers via Sparse Autoencoders

The paper compares latent representations in Selective State Space Models (SSMs) like Mamba and Transformers such as Pythia using Sparse Autoencoders. Across a 10‑million token corpus, 99.98% of Mamba features align closely with Pythia’s, supporting the Universality Hypothesis that core semantic representations are similar across architectures. A tiny 0.02% of features diverge, with Mamba’s recurrent bottleneck causing it to compress syntactic anomalies into polysemantic neurons, whereas Pythia’s attention can isolate distinct formatting edge‑cases.

By Rithin Nagaraj, Rupa Laalasa Oruganti, Prerna Subhashchandra Kunder, Ashwini M Joshi
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 22

Why is AI-generated language so hard to understand?

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.

By Thomas Hikaru Clark, Matias B. Martin, Kyle Mahowald