mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Language Model Understood the Prompt was Ambiguous: Probing Syntactic Uncertainty Through Generation

arXiv 2109.07848 ↗First posted 16 Sep 2021cs.CLcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Temporary syntactic ambiguities arise when the beginning of a sentence is compatible with multiple syntactic analyses. We inspect to which extent neural language models (LMs) exhibit uncertainty over such analyses when processing temporarily ambiguous inputs, and how that uncertainty is modulated by disambiguating cues. We probe the LM's expectations by generating from it: we use stochastic decoding to derive a set of sentence completions, and estimate the probability that the LM assigns to each interpretation based on the distribution of parses across completions. Unlike scoring-based methods for targeted syntactic evaluation, this technique makes it possible to explore completions that are not hypothesized in advance by the researcher. We apply this method to study the behavior of two LMs (GPT2 and an LSTM) on three types of temporary ambiguity, using materials from human sentence processing experiments. We find that LMs can track multiple analyses simultaneously; the degree of uncertainty varies across constructions and contexts. As a response to disambiguating cues, the LMs often select the correct interpretation, but occasional errors point to potential areas of improvement.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2021.

Builds on

11 of 26 references.

References · 11

  1. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  2. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  3. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
  4. 2018AllenNLP: A Deep Semantic Natural Language Processing Platformcited by 347
  5. 2016Deep Biaffine Attention for Neural Dependency Parsingcited by 334
  6. 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 210
  7. 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
  8. 2020Syntactic Structure from Deep Learningcited by 99
  9. 2018Under the Hood: Using Diagnostic Classifiers to Investigate and Improve how Language Models Track Agreement Informationcited by 97
  10. 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
  11. 2018RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependencycited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 6; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Language Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 92
  2. 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
  3. 2022Probing for Incremental Parse States in Autoregressive Language Modelscited by 24
  4. 2024Log Probabilities Are a Reliable Estimate of Semantic Plausibility in Base and Instruction-Tuned Language Modelscited by 24
  5. 2022When a sentence does not introduce a discourse entity, Transformer-based models still sometimes refer to itcited by 22
  6. 2023Exploring and Characterizing Large Language Models For Embedded System Development and Debuggingcited by 20
  7. 2023A Systematic Comparison of Syllogistic Reasoning in Humans and Language Modelscited by 20
  8. 2023AmbiCoref: Evaluating Human and Model Sensitivity to Ambiguous Coreferencecited by 12
  9. 2022Garden-Path Traversal in GPT-2cited by 4
  10. 2023Structural Ambiguity and its Disambiguation in Language Model Based Parsers: the Case of Dutch Clause Relativizationcited by 2
  11. 2025Iterative Resolution of Prompt Ambiguities Using a Progressive Cutting-Search Approachcited by 2
  12. 2024When Only Time Will Tell: Interpreting How Transformers Process Local Ambiguities Through the Lens of Restart-Incrementalitycited by 1
3 more
  1. 2025Prompt Balance Matters: Understanding How Imbalanced Few-Shot Learning Affects Multilingual Sense Disambiguation in LLMscited by 1
  2. 2025Do Large Language Models know who did what to whom?cited by 0
  3. 2026Why are language models less surprised than humans? Testing the Parse Multiplicity Mismatch Hypothesiscited by 0