mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Syntactic Perturbations Reveal Representational Correlates of Hierarchical Phrase Structure in Pretrained Language Models

arXiv 2104.07578 ↗First posted 15 Apr 2021cs.CLcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While vector-based language representations from pretrained language models have set a new standard for many NLP tasks, there is not yet a complete accounting of their inner workings. In particular, it is not entirely clear what aspects of sentence-level syntax are captured by these representations, nor how (if at all) they are built along the stacked layers of the network. In this paper, we aim to address such questions with a general class of interventional, input perturbation-based analyses of representations from pretrained language models. Importing from computational and cognitive neuroscience the notion of representational invariance, we perform a series of probes designed to test the sensitivity of these representations to several kinds of structure in sentences. Each probe involves swapping words in a sentence and comparing the representations from perturbed sentences against the original. We experiment with three different perturbations: (1) random permutations of n-grams of varying width, to test the scale at which a representation is sensitive to word position; (2) swapping of two spans which do or do not form a syntactic phrase, to test sensitivity to global phrase structure; and (3) swapping of two adjacent words which do or do not break apart a syntactic phrase, to test sensitivity to local phrase structure. Results from these probes collectively suggest that Transformers build sensitivity to larger parts of the sentence along their layers, and that hierarchical phrase structure plays a role in this process. More broadly, our results also indicate that structured input perturbations widens the scope of analyses that can be performed on often-opaque deep learning systems, and can serve as a complement to existing tools (such as supervised linear probes) for interpreting complex black-box models.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2021.

Builds on

36 of 55 references.

References · 36

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
  4. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
  5. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
  6. 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
  7. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
  8. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  9. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
  10. 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
  11. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
  12. 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 382
24 more
  1. 2018Insights on representational similarity in neural networks with canonical correlationcited by 318
  2. 2019What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language modelscited by 317
  3. 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 304
  4. 2017Unsupervised Machine Translation Using Monolingual Corpora Onlycited by 272
  5. 2019Visualizing and Measuring the Geometry of BERTcited by 215
  6. 2019Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilitiescited by 191
  7. 2021Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for Littlecited by 176
  8. 2019Good-Enough Compositional Data Augmentationcited by 158
  9. 2017Unsupervised Neural Machine Translationcited by 148
  10. 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
  11. 2019StructBERT: Incorporating Language Structures into Pre-training for Deep Language Understandingcited by 108
  12. 2016Learning Distributed Representations of Sentences from Unlabelled Datacited by 90
  13. 2018SwitchOut: an Efficient Data Augmentation Algorithm for Neural Machine Translationcited by 72
  14. 2020Out of Order: How Important Is The Sequential Order of Words in a Sentence in Natural Language Understanding Tasks?cited by 72
  15. 2017Classification and Geometry of General Perceptual Manifoldscited by 62
  16. 2020Are Pre-trained Language Models Aware of Phrases? Simple but Strong Baselines for Grammar Inductioncited by 47
  17. 2021BERT & Family Eat Word Salad: Experiments with Text Understandingcited by 44
  18. 2020Emergence of Separable Manifolds in Deep Language Representationscited by 39
  19. 2017Analyzing Hidden Representations in End-to-End Automatic Speech Recognition Systemscited by 31
  20. 2018RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependencycited by 23
  21. 2019Syntax-Infused Transformer and BERT models for Machine Translation and Natural Language Understandingcited by 20
  22. 2019Visualizing the PHATE of Neural Networkscited by 18
  23. 2020Syntactic Structure Distillation Pretraining For Bidirectional Encoderscited by 18
  24. 2019Hierarchical Representation in Neural Language Models: Suppression and Recovery of Expectationscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 4; 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

14 papers.

Sort: