Papers › Active Use of Latent Constituency Representation in both Humans and Large Language Models

Active Use of Latent Constituency Representation in both Humans and Large Language Models

28 May 2024arXiv:2405.18241archive 2025-07-28

Wei Liu, Ming Xiang, Nai Ding

Understanding how sentences are internally represented in the human brain, as well as in large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, is a major challenge for cognitive science. Classic linguistic theories propose that the brain represents a sentence by parsing it into hierarchically organized constituents. In contrast, LLMs do not explicitly parse linguistic constituents and their latent representations remains poorly explained. Here, we demonstrate that humans and LLMs construct similar latent representations of hierarchical linguistic constituents by analyzing their behaviors during a novel one-shot learning task, in which they infer which words should be deleted from a sentence. Both humans and LLMs tend to delete a constituent, instead of a nonconstituent word string. In contrast, a naive sequence processing model that has access to word properties and ordinal positions does not show this property. Based on the word deletion behaviors, we can reconstruct the latent constituency tree representation of a sentence for both humans and LLMs. These results demonstrate that a latent tree-structured constituency representation can emerge in both the human brain and LLMs.

PaperPDFCode

Code

y1ny/WordDeletion officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

One-Shot LearningSentence

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections