How Large Language Models Get Stuck: Early structure with persistent errors

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a puzzling disparity in their formal linguistic competence: while they learn some linguistic phenomena with near-perfect mastery, they often perform below chance on others, even after training on trillions of tokens. In this work, we investigate whether these failures stem from inherent architectural limitations or simply the scarcity of these specific grammatical constructions in web-scale corpora. We pre-train simple GPT-2 Small (124M) models on a 100M-token random sample of the FineWeb corpus and intervene by injecting a minimal amount (1%) of synthetic data targeting specific linguistic phenomena. We find that this targeted intervention substantially improves model performance in 8 out of the 9 worst-performing BLiMP paradigms - notably the accuracy on a specific paradigm, only_npi_scope, surges from 20.9% to 69.4%. Furthermore, we observe that these interventions generally preserve or slightly improve aggregate performance. However, while we also identify a resistant phenomenon, principle_A_c_command, whose performance remains below chance even after our data augmentation, our findings do serve as an optimistic existence proof that even small language models can substantially improve on those linguistic phenomena on which models typically perform poorly, provided the pre-training data contains sufficient exposure to them. This suggests that efforts towards human-scale language modeling may benefit greatly by focusing on data composition. The code to reproduce our results is open-sourced at https://github.com/kowndinya-renduchintala/heterogeneity-in-formal-linguistic-competence.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong linguistic performance, yet their internal mechanisms for producing these predictions remain unclear. We investigate the hypothesis that LLMs encode representations of linguistic constraint violations within their parameters, which are selectively activated when processing ungrammatical sentences. To test this, we use sparse autoencoders to decompose polysemantic activations into sparse, monosemantic features and recover candidates for violation-related features. We introduce a sensitivity score for identifying features that are preferentially activated on constraint-violated versus well-formed inputs, enabling unsupervised detection of potential violation-specific features. We further propose a conjunctive falsification framework with three criteria evaluated jointly. Overall, the results are negative in two respects: (1) the falsification criteria are not jointly satisfied across linguistic phenomena, and (2) no features are consistently shared across all categories. While some phenomena show partial evidence of selective causal structure, the overall pattern provides limited support for a unified set of grammatical violation detectors in current LMs.

This article describes a novel language task, the Blackbird Language Matrices (BLM) task, inspired by intelligence tests, and illustrates the BLM datasets, their construction and benchmarking, and targeted experiments on chunking and systematicity. BLMs are multiple-choice problems, structured at multiple levels: within each sentence, across the input sequence, within each candidate answer. Because of their rich structure, these curated, but naturalistic datasets are key to answer some core questions about current large language models abilities: do LLMs detect linguistic objects and their properties? Do they detect and use systematic patterns across sentences? Are they more prone to linguistic or reasoning errors, and how do these interact? We show that BLMs, while challenging, can be solved at good levels of performance, in more than one language, with simple baseline models or, at better performance levels, with more tailored models. We show that their representations contain the grammatical objects and attributes relevant to solve a linguistic task. We also show that these solutions are reached by detecting systematic patterns across sentences. The paper supports the point of view that curated, structured datasets support multi-faceted investigations of properties of language and large language models. Because they present a curated, articulated structure, because they comprise both learning contexts and expected answers, and because they are partly built by hand, BLMs fall in the category of datasets that can support explainability investigations, and be useful to ask why large language models behave the way they do.