# Revisiting the Systematicity in Negation in the Era of In-Context Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16867 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16867/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.13528/) (2019)
- [In-Context Learning Creates Task Vectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15916/) (2023)
- [In-context Vectors: Making In Context Learning More Effective and Controllable Through Latent Space Steering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.06668/) (2023)
- [Negated and Misprimed Probes for Pretrained Language Models: Birds Can Talk, But Cannot Fly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03343/) (2019)
- [Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08189/) (2023)
- [CONDAQA: A Contrastive Reading Comprehension Dataset for Reasoning about Negation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.00295/) (2022)
- [Probing Linguistic Systematicity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.04315/) (2020)
- [Do Neural Models Learn Systematicity of Monotonicity Inference in Natural Language?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.14839/) (2020)
- [It's not a Non-Issue: Negation as a Source of Error in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05432/) (2020)
- [Negation, Coordination, and Quantifiers in Contextualized Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07836/) (2022)
- [Analyzing the Inner Workings of Transformers in Compositional Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15277/) (2025)
- [Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04461/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Understanding the meaning of negated sentences remains one of the challenges for language models, even in the era of large language models (LLMs). We analyze systematicity regarding LLM understanding of negation from two perspectives: behavioral systematicity and representational systematicity. For behavioral systematicity, we confirm that through demonstrations and in-context learning, LLMs can recognize negation expressions and scope within sentences to some extent, but they fail to achieve perfect performance. In particular, the difficulty of the negation scope recognition for models varies depending on the output format. For representational systematicity, we analyze the extent to which function vectors can be robustly constructed from in-context examples for tasks that are essential to understanding negation. The experiments suggest that while function vectors can be composed for negation cue extraction tasks, extracting function vectors for recognizing scope is more challenging.