Grammatical "grandmother neurons" are rare in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Understanding how Large Language Models (LLMs) encode linguistic structures remains a fundamental challenge in interpretability research. While diagnostic classifiers (or "probes") are widely used for this task, they face significant methodological criticism: training auxiliary classifiers introduces capacity confounds and calibration issues, often making it difficult to distinguish the model's intrinsic representations from the probe's ability to learn the task. To address these limitations, we introduce a probe-free framework for localizing linguistic selectivity at the individual neuron level. Leveraging the controlled contrasts of linguistic minimal pairs, we propose a Neuron Separability Index (NSI), a metric that directly quantifies how reliably single neurons differentiate grammatical from ungrammatical constructions without parameter updates. Applying NSI across 68 linguistic paradigms and seven checkpoints reveals three main patterns: 1) raw separability reaches near-peak levels earlier for morphological and syntactic distinctions than for syntax-semantics interface and conceptual distinctions. 2) after permutation normalization, single-unit selectivity is sparse, weak, and narrowly tuned: only a small fraction of units are sensitive to an average paradigm, and strongly selective "grandmother neurons" are rare. 3) whole-vector linear separability, single-neuron selectivity, and behavioral competence are largely dissociated, and targeted ablations further separate activation selectivity from causal reliance.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.
Builds on
44 of 61 references.
References · 44
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,307
- 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 807
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
- 2021Knowledge Neurons in Pretrained Transformerscited by 590
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
32 more
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
- 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 239
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
- 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 210
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 204
- 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 163
- 2020Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?cited by 144
- 2021Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Modelscited by 127
- 2018What Is One Grain of Sand in the Desert? Analyzing Individual Neurons in Deep NLP Modelscited by 124
- 2018Identifying and Controlling Important Neurons in Neural Machine Translationcited by 110
- 2019The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language modelscited by 92
- 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
- 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Controlcited by 83
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysiscited by 80
- 2024RAVEL: Evaluating Interpretability Methods on Disentangling Language Model Representationscited by 77
- 2025MultiBLiMP 1.0: A Massively Multilingual Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairscited by 65
- 2024How Large Language Models Encode Context Knowledge? A Layer-Wise Probing Studycited by 64
- 2021On the Pitfalls of Analyzing Individual Neurons in Language Modelscited by 61
- 2020Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Evaluation of Word Prediction Modelscited by 54
- 2023Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language modelscited by 43
- 2021Discourse Probing of Pretrained Language Modelscited by 38
- 2020What's so special about BERT's layers? A closer look at the NLP pipeline in monolingual and multilingual modelscited by 35
- 2024Decoding Probing: Revealing Internal Linguistic Structures in Neural Language Models using Minimal Pairscited by 24
- 2022COMPS: Conceptual Minimal Pair Sentences for testing Robust Property Knowledge and its Inheritance in Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 15
- 2022Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Neurons in Multilingual Language Modelscited by 14
- 2024A Systematic Assessment of Language Models with Linguistic Minimal Pairs in Chinesecited by 13
- 2023Probing LLMs for Joint Encoding of Linguistic Categoriescited by 9
- 2025XCOMPS: A Multilingual Benchmark of Conceptual Minimal Pairscited by 9
- 2025Layer-wise Minimal Pair Probing Reveals Contextual Grammatical-Conceptual Hierarchy in Speech Representationscited by 5
- 2024Large Language Models as Neurolinguistic Subjects: Discrepancy between Performance and Competencecited by 4
- 2025Far from the Shallow: Brain-Predictive Reasoning Embedding through Residual Disentanglementcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.