mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Schr"odinger's Tree -- On Syntax and Neural Language Models

arXiv 2110.08887 ↗First posted 17 Oct 2021cs.CLcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In the last half-decade, the field of natural language processing (NLP) has undergone two major transitions: the switch to neural networks as the primary modeling paradigm and the homogenization of the training regime (pre-train, then fine-tune). Amidst this process, language models have emerged as NLP's workhorse, displaying increasingly fluent generation capabilities and proving to be an indispensable means of knowledge transfer downstream. Due to the otherwise opaque, black-box nature of such models, researchers have employed aspects of linguistic theory in order to characterize their behavior. Questions central to syntax -- the study of the hierarchical structure of language -- have factored heavily into such work, shedding invaluable insights about models' inherent biases and their ability to make human-like generalizations. In this paper, we attempt to take stock of this growing body of literature. In doing so, we observe a lack of clarity across numerous dimensions, which influences the hypotheses that researchers form, as well as the conclusions they draw from their findings. To remedy this, we urge researchers make careful considerations when investigating coding properties, selecting representations, and evaluating via downstream tasks. Furthermore, we outline the implications of the different types of research questions exhibited in studies on syntax, as well as the inherent pitfalls of aggregate metrics. Ultimately, we hope that our discussion adds nuance to the prospect of studying language models and paves the way for a less monolithic perspective on syntax in this context.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 67 of its 115 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Oct 2021.

Builds on

67 of 115 references.

References · 67

  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. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  6. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  7. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  8. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  9. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  10. 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
  11. 2017Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 1,684
  12. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
38 more
  1. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
  2. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  3. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  4. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
  5. 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 759
  6. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  7. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  8. 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
  9. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
  10. 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
  11. 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 436
  12. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  13. 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 382
  14. 2019Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 367
  15. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
  16. 2018Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inferencecited by 291
  17. 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 280
  18. 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 260
  19. 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 239
  20. 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
  21. 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 210
  22. 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 204
  23. 2019Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilitiescited by 191
  24. 2021Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for Littlecited by 176
  25. 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 163
  26. 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 159
  27. 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 158
  28. 2020Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?cited by 144
  29. 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
  30. 2019On Identifiability in Transformerscited by 115
  31. 2016Recurrent Neural Network Grammarscited by 109
  32. 2020Syntactic Structure from Deep Learningcited by 99
  33. 2019Do Attention Heads in BERT Track Syntactic Dependencies?cited by 87
  34. 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
  35. 2020Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attributioncited by 79
  36. 2020Out of Order: How Important Is The Sequential Order of Words in a Sentence in Natural Language Understanding Tasks?cited by 72
  37. 2020UnNatural Language Inferencecited by 68
  38. 2021Conditional probing: measuring usable information beyond a baselinecited by 61

50 most cited of 67 All 67 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

6 papers.