Incremental Sentence Processing Mechanisms in Autoregressive Transformer Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Autoregressive transformer language models (LMs) possess strong syntactic abilities, often successfully handling phenomena from agreement to NPI licensing. However, the features they use to incrementally process language inputs are not well understood. In this paper, we fill this gap by studying the mechanisms underlying garden path sentence processing in LMs. We ask: (1) Do LMs use syntactic features or shallow heuristics to perform incremental sentence processing? (2) Do LMs represent only one potential interpretation, or multiple? and (3) Do LMs reanalyze or repair their initial incorrect representations? To address these questions, we use sparse autoencoders to identify interpretable features that determine which continuation - and thus which reading - of a garden path sentence the LM prefers. We find that while many important features relate to syntactic structure, some reflect syntactically irrelevant heuristics. Moreover, while most active features correspond to one reading of the sentence, some features correspond to the other, suggesting that LMs assign weight to both possibilities simultaneously. Finally, LMs do not re-use features from garden path sentence processing to answer follow-up questions.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2024.
Builds on
31 of 74 references.
References · 31
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
- 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,183
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
- 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
- 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 438
- 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 435
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
- 2013Direct and Indirect Effectscited by 280
- 2019Analyzing the Structure of Attention in a Transformer Language Modelcited by 243
19 more
- 2019Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilitiescited by 192
- 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 165
- 2020Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?cited by 151
- 2024Have Faith in Faithfulness: Going Beyond Circuit Overlap When Finding Model Mechanismscited by 149
- 2021Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Modelscited by 131
- 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
- 2021An Interpretability Illusion for BERTcited by 97
- 2019Do Attention Heads in BERT Track Syntactic Dependencies?cited by 88
- 2021Neuron-level Interpretation of Deep NLP Models: A Surveycited by 81
- 2022Probing for the Usage of Grammatical Numbercited by 59
- 2024Auxiliary task demands mask the capabilities of smaller language modelscited by 54
- 2021Refining Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 41
- 2020A Tale of a Probe and a Parsercited by 40
- 2021A Targeted Assessment of Incremental Processing in Neural LanguageModels and Humanscited by 32
- 2021A Non-Linear Structural Probecited by 31
- 2022Syntactic Surprisal From Neural Models Predicts, But Underestimates, Human Processing Difficulty From Syntactic Ambiguitiescited by 30
- 2022Probing for Incremental Parse States in Autoregressive Language Modelscited by 24
- 2024Incremental Comprehension of Garden-Path Sentences by Large Language Models: Semantic Interpretation, Syntactic Re-Analysis, and Attentioncited by 11
- 2019Assessing incrementality in sequence-to-sequence modelscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2025Crosscoding Through Time: Tracking Emergence & Consolidation Of Linguistic Representations Throughout LLM Pretrainingcited by 6
- 2026Latent Planning Emerges with Scalecited by 6
- 2025Can LLMs Detect Ambiguous Plural Reference? An Analysis of Split-Antecedent and Mereological Referencecited by 0
- 2026Why are language models less surprised than humans? Testing the Parse Multiplicity Mismatch Hypothesiscited by 0
- 2026Why are language models less surprised than humans? Testing the Parse Multiplicity Mismatch Hypothesis14 May 2026
- 2026Latent Planning Emerges with Scale14 Apr 2026
- 2025Can LLMs Detect Ambiguous Plural Reference? An Analysis of Split-Antecedent and Mereological Reference6 Oct 2025
- 2025Crosscoding Through Time: Tracking Emergence & Consolidation Of Linguistic Representations Throughout LLM Pretraining5 Sep 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Autoregressive + Chain of Thought = Recurrent: Recurrence's Role in Language Models' Computability and a Revisit of Recurrent Transformer
- 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Models
- 2022minicons: Enabling Flexible Behavioral and Representational Analyses of Transformer Language Models
- 2023Dynamic Context Pruning for Efficient and Interpretable Autoregressive Transformers
- 2025Speed Always Wins: A Survey on Efficient Architectures for Large Language Models
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders for Mechanistic Interpretability in NLP: A Critical Survey of Recoverability, Interpretability, and Utility
- 2023Task-agnostic Distillation of Encoder-Decoder Language Models
- 2026Distilling Sequential Computation in Transformer Language Models