Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42472239›Full record

ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2026

Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?

Joseph M Denning, Xiaohan Hannah Guo, Bryor Snefjella, Idan A Blank

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joseph M DenningDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3785-714X
Xiaohan Hannah GuoDepartment of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8938-5458
Bryor SnefjellaDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Idan A BlankDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7057-8391

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Language models (LMs) are commonly criticized for not "understanding" language. However, many critiques focus on cognitive abilities that, in humans, are distinct from language processing. Here, we instead study a kind of understanding tightly linked to language: inferring "who did what to whom" (thematic roles) in a sentence. Does the central training objective of LMs-word prediction-result in sentence representations that capture thematic roles? In two experiments, we characterized sentence representations in four LMs that have been proposed as models of human language processing. The overall representational similarity of sentence pairs did not reflect whether they had the same agent/patient assignments or opposite agent/patient assignments. Furthermore, we found limited evidence that thematic role information was available in any subspace of hidden activations. However, some attention heads robustly captured thematic roles, independently of syntax. Therefore, LMs can extract thematic roles but this information influences their representations weakly.

Indexed as

comprehensionlanguage modelsrepresentational similaritythematic roles

Identifiers

PMID42472239
PMCPMC13379307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.