A Scaled-Up Empirical Study of Syntactic Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Syntactic language models (SLMs) that generate sentences along with their syntactic tree structures have shown promise in both syntactic generalization and downstream tasks. Prior studies, however, have mostly evaluated smaller models trained on less pretraining data and tested on narrower task suites. In addition, the design space of tree linearization and attention masks remains underexplored. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of 12 controlled configurations---one terminal baseline and 11 SLM variants spanning different linearizations and masks---at scales up to 1B parameters and 100B training tokens, evaluated across 11 downstream tasks and two syntactic benchmarks. The experimental results show that SLMs with standard causal attention match or exceed structural-mask variants across downstream and syntactic benchmarks. They require no architectural modifications and remain compatible with FlashAttention. We also observe that when scaling up to the 1B-parameter scale, the top-performing SLM variant no longer shows a clear advantage over a compute-matched non-structural baseline, suggesting that SLMs may become less competitive with scale. Our code is available at https://github.com/qlwpc/TG-Interpolation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.
Builds on
27 of 39 references.
References · 27
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2021RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embeddingcited by 4,703
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,883
- 2023FlashAttention-2: Faster Attention with Better Parallelism and Work Partitioningcited by 2,598
- 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,183
- 2018Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answeringcited by 2,164
- 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,822
- 2020GLU Variants Improve Transformercited by 1,804
- 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,480
15 more
- 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,317
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 613
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
- 2023Think before you speak: Training Language Models With Pause Tokenscited by 264
- 2018Constituency Parsing with a Self-Attentive Encodercited by 199
- 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 165
- 2024OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluationscited by 106
- 2022Transformer Grammars: Augmenting Transformer Language Models with Syntactic Inductive Biases at Scalecited by 41
- 2025Predictable Scale: Part I, Step Law -- Optimal Hyperparameter Scaling Law in Large Language Model Pretrainingcited by 34
- 2017Effective Inference for Generative Neural Parsingcited by 25
- 2023Pushdown Layers: Encoding Recursive Structure in Transformer Language Modelscited by 19
- 2024Generative Pretrained Structured Transformers: Unsupervised Syntactic Language Models at Scalecited by 10
- 2024Dependency Transformer Grammars: Integrating Dependency Structures into Transformer Language Modelscited by 8
- 2026GiLT: Augmenting Transformer Language Models with Dependency Graphscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.