LSTMs Compose (and Learn) Bottom-Up
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent work in NLP shows that LSTM language models capture hierarchical structure in language data. In contrast to existing work, we consider the textitlearning process that leads to their compositional behavior. For a closer look at how an LSTM's sequential representations are composed hierarchically, we present a related measure of Decompositional Interdependence (DI) between word meanings in an LSTM, based on their gate interactions. We connect this measure to syntax with experiments on English language data, where DI is higher on pairs of words with lower syntactic distance. To explore the inductive biases that cause these compositional representations to arise during training, we conduct simple experiments on synthetic data. These synthetic experiments support a specific hypothesis about how hierarchical structures are discovered over the course of training: that LSTM constituent representations are learned bottom-up, relying on effective representations of their shorter children, rather than learning the longer-range relations independently from children.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 0; 2023: 4; 2024: 3; 2025: 1.
11 papers.
- 2023Sudden Drops in the Loss: Syntax Acquisition, Phase Transitions, and Simplicity Bias in MLMscited by 121
- 2021The paradox of the compositionality of natural language: a neural machine translation case studycited by 58
- 2024Towards a theory of how the structure of language is acquired by deep neural networkscited by 38
- 2024Mechanistic?cited by 25
- 2023The Life Cycle of Knowledge in Big Language Models: A Surveycited by 23
- 2023Feature Interactions Reveal Linguistic Structure in Language Modelscited by 8
- 2025Can Interpretation Predict Behavior on Unseen Data?cited by 8
- 2023Training Dynamics of Contextual N-Grams in Language Modelscited by 7
- 2021Attention vs non-attention for a Shapley-based explanation methodcited by 3
- 2021Representing Syntax and Composition with Geometric Transformationscited by 3
- 2024Using Shapley interactions to understand how models use structurecited by 1
- 2025Can Interpretation Predict Behavior on Unseen Data?8 Jul 2025
- 2024Mechanistic?7 Oct 2024
- 2024Towards a theory of how the structure of language is acquired by deep neural networks28 May 2024
- 2024Using Shapley interactions to understand how models use structure19 Mar 2024
- 2023Training Dynamics of Contextual N-Grams in Language Models1 Nov 2023
- 2023Sudden Drops in the Loss: Syntax Acquisition, Phase Transitions, and Simplicity Bias in MLMs13 Sep 2023
- 2023Feature Interactions Reveal Linguistic Structure in Language Models21 Jun 2023
- 2023The Life Cycle of Knowledge in Big Language Models: A Survey14 Mar 2023
- 2021The paradox of the compositionality of natural language: a neural machine translation case study12 Aug 2021
- 2021Representing Syntax and Composition with Geometric Transformations3 Jun 2021
- 2021Attention vs non-attention for a Shapley-based explanation method26 Apr 2021