Probing for targeted syntactic knowledge through grammatical error detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Targeted studies testing knowledge of subject-verb agreement (SVA) indicate that pre-trained language models encode syntactic information. We assert that if models robustly encode subject-verb agreement, they should be able to identify when agreement is correct and when it is incorrect. To that end, we propose grammatical error detection as a diagnostic probe to evaluate token-level contextual representations for their knowledge of SVA. We evaluate contextual representations at each layer from five pre-trained English language models: BERT, XLNet, GPT-2, RoBERTa, and ELECTRA. We leverage public annotated training data from both English second language learners and Wikipedia edits, and report results on manually crafted stimuli for subject-verb agreement. We find that masked language models linearly encode information relevant to the detection of SVA errors, while the autoregressive models perform on par with our baseline. However, we also observe a divergence in performance when probes are trained on different training sets, and when they are evaluated on different syntactic constructions, suggesting the information pertaining to SVA error detection is not robustly encoded.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Oct 2022.
Builds on
19 of 35 references.
References · 19
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,811
- 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,290
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 958
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 876
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 457
- 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 438
- 2019Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representationscited by 383
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
- 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 242
7 more
- 2016Fine-grained Analysis of Sentence Embeddings Using Auxiliary Prediction Taskscited by 216
- 2019Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilitiescited by 192
- 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 165
- 2021Frequency Effects on Syntactic Rule Learning in Transformerscited by 59
- 2022Probing for the Usage of Grammatical Numbercited by 59
- 2021Refining Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 41
- 2022Does BERT really agree ? Fine-grained Analysis of Lexical Dependence on a Syntactic Taskcited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2023Understanding the Role of Input Token Characters in Language Models: How Does Information Loss Affect Performance?cited by 2
- 2025A Representation Level Analysis of NMT Model Robustness to Grammatical Errorscited by 1
- 2024Enhancing Grammatical Error Detection using BERT with Cleaned Lang-8 Datasetcited by 0
- 2026Representation of syntax in LLMs through the lens of linear distance and similarity-aware entropycited by 0
- 2026Representation of syntax in LLMs through the lens of linear distance and similarity-aware entropy28 Aug 2026
- 2025A Representation Level Analysis of NMT Model Robustness to Grammatical Errors27 May 2025
- 2024Enhancing Grammatical Error Detection using BERT with Cleaned Lang-8 Dataset23 Nov 2024
- 2023Understanding the Role of Input Token Characters in Language Models: How Does Information Loss Affect Performance?26 Oct 2023