pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.03676 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-03 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

Different types of syntactic agreement recruit the same units within large language models

Authors on Pith no claims yet
classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords syntacticmodelsunitsagreementllmsdifferentphenomenarecruit
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can reliably distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical sentences, but how grammatical knowledge is represented within the models remains an open question. We investigate whether different syntactic phenomena recruit shared or distinct components in LLMs. Using a functional localization approach inspired by cognitive neuroscience, we identify the LLM units most responsive to 67 English syntactic phenomena in seven open-weight models. These units are consistently recruited across sentences containing the phenomena and causally support the models' syntactic performance. Critically, different types of syntactic agreement (e.g., subject-verb, anaphor, determiner-noun) recruit overlapping sets of units, suggesting that agreement constitutes a meaningful functional category for LLMs. This pattern holds in English, Russian, and Chinese; and further, in a cross-lingual analysis of 57 diverse languages, structurally more similar languages share more units for subject-verb agreement. Taken together, these findings reveal that syntactic agreement-a critical marker of syntactic dependencies-constitutes a meaningful category within LLMs' representational spaces.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Fine-Grained Analysis of Shared Syntactic Mechanisms in Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Language models employ a highly localized shared mechanism for filler-gap dependencies but no unified mechanism for NPI licensing, and activation patching generalizes better than supervised alignment search.