Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Interpreting token compositionality in LLMs: A robustness analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.12924 v3 pith:M3MP4PLB submitted 2024-10-16 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelcompositionalinformationinterpretabilityllmscompositionalitycriticaldesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Understanding the internal mechanisms of large language models (LLMs) is integral to enhancing their reliability, interpretability, and inference processes. We present Constituent-Aware Pooling (CAP), a methodology designed to analyse how LLMs process compositional linguistic structures. Grounded in principles of compositionality, mechanistic interpretability, and information theory, CAP systematically intervenes in model activations through constituent-based pooling at various model levels. Our experiments on inverse definition modelling, hypernym and synonym prediction reveal critical insights into transformers' limitations in handling compositional abstractions. No specific layer integrates tokens into unified semantic representations based on their constituent parts. We observe fragmented information processing, which intensifies with model size, suggesting that larger models struggle more with these interventions and exhibit greater information dispersion. This fragmentation likely stems from transformers' training objectives and architectural design, preventing systematic and cohesive representations. Our findings highlight fundamental limitations in current transformer architectures regarding compositional semantics processing and model interpretability, underscoring the critical need for novel approaches in LLM design to address these challenges.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Revisiting Compositional Generalization Capability of Large Language Models Considering Instruction Following Ability

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark permutes CommonGen concept sets and asks LLMs to compose sentences in the specified order; even the best model achieves only about 75% ordered coverage.

  2. Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A survey showing that common systematic generalization benchmarks measure behavioural systematicity, not the representational systematicity that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge requires, and mapping them onto Hadley's ...

Pith tools