ArticlePloS one2026
Focus shifts in contextual and lexical cue interactions in GPT models.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transformer-based language models have demonstrated sensitivity to a range of linguistic dependencies, yet it remains unclear how they represent information-structural focus and integrate discourse and lexical focus cues during ellipsis resolution. We investigated GPT-style models' interpretation of elliptical remnant continuations in double-object constructions by manipulating contextual focus via preceding interrogatives (who vs. what) and lexical focus via the particle only, whose surface position was varied. Using word-by-word surprisal as an index of processing difficulty, we conducted three experiments with GPT-2 models (Small-XL) and GPT-Neo. In Experiment 1 (no only), models robustly tracked the wh-induced discourse focus, assigning higher surprisal to remnants that mismatched the contextually focused constituent. In Experiment 2 (only preceding the indirect object), contextual focus continued to dominate, indicating that discourse cues were maintained despite the presence of a competing lexical marker. In Experiment 3 (only preceding the direct object), lexical focus effects became stronger: models favored remnants aligned with the lexically biased direct object, consistent with locality-based cue weighting when only is adjacent to that object. Comparisons with human reaction-time data revealed broad convergence in contextual-focus sensitivity but divergence when the remnant was compatible with one cue but not the other, with GPT-style models exhibiting a stronger bias toward alignment with only than humans. Together, these findings suggest that the tested models maintain discourse-level focus representations while integrating multiple focus cues in a proximity-sensitive manner, revealing both overlap and limits in their alignment with human processing.
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.