ArticleCognitive science2026
Evidence Against Syntactic Encapsulation in Large Language Models.
Article in Cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional performance in a variety of linguistic tasks. LLMs primarily combine information across words in a sentence using the attention mechanism, implemented by "attention heads:" these components assign numerical weights linking different words in the input to one another, capturing different relationships between these words. Some attention heads automatically learn to assign weights that accurately encode meaningful linguistic features including, importantly, heads that appear specialized for identifying particular syntactic dependencies. Are syntactic computations in such heads "encapsulated", i.e., impenetrable to the influence of non-syntactic information? Such encapsulated computations would be strikingly different from those of the human mind, where non-syntactic information sources (e.g., semantics) influence parsing from the earliest moments of online processing, and where syntax and semantics are tightly linked in the mental lexicon. Here, we tested whether the activity of "syntax-specialized" attention heads in transformer-based LLMs is modulated by one type of semantic information: plausibility. In each of three LLMs (BERT, GPT-2, and Llama 2), we first identified attention heads specialized for various dependency types; in nearly all cases tested, we then found that implausible semantic information reduces attention between the words that constitute the dependency for which a head is specialized. These results demonstrate that, even in attention heads that are the best a-priori candidates for syntactic encapsulation, syntactic information is penetrable to semantics. These data are broadly consistent with the integration of syntax and semantics in human minds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.