mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Tree Transformers are an Ineffective Model of Syntactic Constituency

arXiv 2411.16993 ↗First posted 25 Nov 2024cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Linguists have long held that a key aspect of natural language syntax is the recursive organization of language units into constituent structures, and research has suggested that current state-of-the-art language models lack an inherent bias towards this feature. A number of alternative models have been proposed to provide inductive biases towards constituency, including the Tree Transformer, which utilizes a modified attention mechanism to organize tokens into constituents. We investigate Tree Transformers to study whether they utilize meaningful and/or useful constituent structures. We pretrain a large Tree Transformer on language modeling in order to investigate the learned constituent tree representations of sentences, finding little evidence for meaningful structures. Next, we evaluate Tree Transformers with similar transformer models on error detection tasks requiring constituent structure. We find that while the Tree Transformer models may slightly outperform at these tasks, there is little evidence to suggest a meaningful improvement. In general, we conclude that there is little evidence to support Tree Transformer as an effective model of syntactic constituency.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Nov 2024.

Builds on

23 of 46 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  4. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  5. 2013Estimating or Propagating Gradients Through Stochastic Neurons for Conditional Computationcited by 2,031
  6. 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
  7. 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,041
  8. 2022Neural Networks and the Chomsky Hierarchycited by 214
  9. 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 163
  10. 2021Self-Attention Networks Can Process Bounded Hierarchical Languagescited by 105
  11. 2018Ordered Neurons: Integrating Tree Structures into Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 101
  12. 2019Compound Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars for Grammar Inductioncited by 76
11 more
  1. 2020Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networkscited by 72
  2. 2019Tree Transformer: Integrating Tree Structures into Self-Attentioncited by 68
  3. 2017Learning to Compose Task-Specific Tree Structurescited by 48
  4. 2020Can neural networks acquire a structural bias from raw linguistic data?cited by 35
  5. 2016Learning to Compose Words into Sentences with Reinforcement Learningcited by 30
  6. 2021Sequence-to-Sequence Learning with Latent Neural Grammarscited by 30
  7. 2022Coloring the Blank Slate: Pre-training Imparts a Hierarchical Inductive Bias to Sequence-to-sequence Modelscited by 28
  8. 2021Transformers Generalize Linearlycited by 19
  9. 2023Pushdown Layers: Encoding Recursive Structure in Transformer Language Modelscited by 18
  10. 2017Improved Neural Machine Translation with a Syntax-Aware Encoder and Decodercited by 16
  11. 2021Modeling Hierarchical Structures with Continuous Recursive Neural Networkscited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.