Papers › Humans and transformer LMs: Abstraction drives language learning

Humans and transformer LMs: Abstraction drives language learning

18 Mar 2026arXiv:2603.17475added by Syntology

Jasper Jian, Christopher D. Manning

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Categorization is a core component of human linguistic competence. We investigate how a transformer-based language model (LM) learns linguistic categories by comparing its behaviour over the course of training to behaviours which characterize abstract feature-based and concrete exemplar-based accounts of human language acquisition. We investigate how lexical semantic and syntactic categories emerge using novel divergence-based metrics that track learning trajectories using next-token distributions. In experiments with GPT-2 small, we find that (i) when a construction is learned, abstract class-level behaviour is evident at earlier steps than lexical item-specific behaviour, and (ii) that different linguistic behaviours emerge abruptly in sequence at different points in training, revealing that abstraction plays a key role in how LMs learn. This result informs the models of human language acquisition that LMs may serve as an existence proof for.

Code

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

16 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 16 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from jasperjjian/abstraction. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2603.17475, was issued in March 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

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