# Can Language Models Induce Grammatical Knowledge from Indirect Evidence?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06022 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06022/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00582/) (2019)
- [Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.01368/) (2016)
- [Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.09031/) (2018)
- [Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.11138/) (2018)
- [Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.05287/) (2019)
- [A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03692/) (2020)
- [Under the Hood: Using Diagnostic Classifiers to Investigate and Improve how Language Models Track Agreement Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08079/) (2018)
- [Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.03632/) (2020)
- [Language Models Learn Rare Phenomena from Less Rare Phenomena: The Case of the Missing AANNs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19827/) (2024)
- [Frequency Effects on Syntactic Rule Learning in Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07020/) (2021)
- [Examining the Inductive Bias of Neural Language Models with Artificial Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01044/) (2021)
- [Filtered Corpus Training (FiCT) Shows that Language Models can Generalize from Indirect Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15750/) (2024)
- [Coloring the Blank Slate: Pre-training Imparts a Hierarchical Inductive Bias to Sequence-to-sequence Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.09397/) (2022)
- [Pretraining with Artificial Language: Studying Transferable Knowledge in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.10326/) (2022)
- [Manipulating language models' training data to study syntactic constraint learning: the case of English passivization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04593/) (2024)
- [Assessing the Capacity of Transformer to Abstract Syntactic Representations: A Contrastive Analysis Based on Long-distance Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.04523/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Both Direct and Indirect Evidence Contribute to Dative Alternation Preferences in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20850/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

What kinds of and how much data is necessary for language models to induce grammatical knowledge to judge sentence acceptability? Recent language models still have much room for improvement in their data efficiency compared to humans. This paper investigates whether language models efficiently use indirect data (indirect evidence), from which they infer sentence acceptability. In contrast, humans use indirect evidence efficiently, which is considered one of the inductive biases contributing to efficient language acquisition. To explore this question, we introduce the Wug InDirect Evidence Test (WIDET), a dataset consisting of training instances inserted into the pre-training data and evaluation instances. We inject synthetic instances with newly coined wug words into pretraining data and explore the model's behavior on evaluation data that assesses grammatical acceptability regarding those words. We prepare the injected instances by varying their levels of indirectness and quantity. Our experiments surprisingly show that language models do not induce grammatical knowledge even after repeated exposure to instances with the same structure but differing only in lexical items from evaluation instances in certain language phenomena. Our findings suggest a potential direction for future research: developing models that use latent indirect evidence to induce grammatical knowledge.