mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When Language Models Fall in Love: Animacy Processing in Transformer Language Models

arXiv 2310.15004 ↗First posted 23 Oct 2023cs.CLcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Animacy - whether an entity is alive and sentient - is fundamental to cognitive processing, impacting areas such as memory, vision, and language. However, animacy is not always expressed directly in language: in English it often manifests indirectly, in the form of selectional constraints on verbs and adjectives. This poses a potential issue for transformer language models (LMs): they often train only on text, and thus lack access to extralinguistic information from which humans learn about animacy. We ask: how does this impact LMs' animacy processing - do they still behave as humans do? We answer this question using open-source LMs. Like previous studies, we find that LMs behave much like humans when presented with entities whose animacy is typical. However, we also show that even when presented with stories about atypically animate entities, such as a peanut in love, LMs adapt: they treat these entities as animate, though they do not adapt as well as humans. Even when the context indicating atypical animacy is very short, LMs pick up on subtle clues and change their behavior. We conclude that despite the limited signal through which LMs can learn about animacy, they are indeed sensitive to the relevant lexical semantic nuances available in English.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2023.

Builds on

20 of 62 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  3. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,512
  4. 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 964
  5. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
  6. 2022Emergent World Representations: Exploring a Sequence Model Trained on a Synthetic Taskcited by 431
  7. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
  8. 2019What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language modelscited by 320
  9. 2021Implicit Representations of Meaning in Neural Language Modelscited by 180
  10. 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 119
  11. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
  12. 2020As Good as New. How to Successfully Recycle English GPT-2 to Make Models for Other Languagescited by 54
8 more
  1. 2020Human Sentence Processing: Recurrence or Attention?cited by 51
  2. 2022Event knowledge in large language models: the gap between the impossible and the unlikelycited by 45
  3. 2021Structural Persistence in Language Models: Priming as a Window into Abstract Language Representationscited by 44
  4. 2022Syntactic Surprisal From Neural Models Predicts, But Underestimates, Human Processing Difficulty From Syntactic Ambiguitiescited by 30
  5. 2020How well does surprisal explain N400 amplitude under different experimental conditions?cited by 18
  6. 2021So Cloze yet so Far: N400 Amplitude is Better Predicted by Distributional Information than Human Predictability Judgementscited by 15
  7. 2020Living Machines: A study of atypical animacycited by 14
  8. 2021Different kinds of cognitive plausibility: why are transformers better than RNNs at predicting N400 amplitude?cited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 7; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

12 papers.