Representation of syntax in LLMs through the lens of linear distance and similarity-aware entropy

Juan Pablo Vigneaux; Mary Kennedy; Khalil Iskarous; Robert Frank; Matilde Marcolli

Model	Type	Layer norm.	Attn./MLP	Position encoding	$L$	$d$	ckpts	best
BERT-base	encoder	post-LN	sequential	learned absolute, in the stream	12	768	26	16
DeBERTa-v3-base	encoder	post-LN	sequential	disentangled relative, in attention	12	768	13	9
ModernBERT-base	encoder	pre-LN	sequential	rotary, in attention	22	768	46	30
GPT-2-base	decoder	pre-LN	sequential	learned absolute, in the stream	12	768	26	16
GPT-J-6B	decoder	pre-LN	parallel	rotary, in attention	28	4096	29	8
RoBERTa-Shuffle-n1	encoder	post-LN	sequential	learned absolute, in the stream	12	768	13	9

Appendix

Table A.1: The six models probed in this work. Type specifies the attention pattern and pre-training objective, Attn./MLP whether a block applies attention and MLP in sequence or in parallel, and Position encoding where positional information enters the computation;

L

is the number of blocks,

d

the model dimension, ckpts the number of residual stream checkpoints we introduced and best the one at which development UUAS peaks. In general, ckpts follows from the architecture, with the exception of DeBERTa-v3-base and RoBERTa-Shuffle-n1 for which we only extracted uncontextualized embeddings with positional information and post-transformer-block checkpoints.

Relation	Train	Dev	Test	Relation	Train	Dev	Test
acomp	1,163	48	99	neg	5,370	199	371
advcl	6,210	293	372	nn	74,082	3,228	4,364
advmod	29,282	1,276	1,839	npadvmod	3,451	189	231
amod	60,276	2,506	3,481	nsubj	66,179	2,780	3,991
appos	6,926	276	466	nsubjpass	6,625	253	386
aux	33,875	1,240	2,148	num	22,606	1,148	1,238

Appendix

Table A.2: Gold edge counts per dependency relation, for each Penn Treebank WSJ split. A relation’s count is the number of edges the probe evaluation scores under it: edges of the gold dependency tree whose two endpoints are both non-punctuation tokens. Root arcs are excluded, having only one endpoint among the tokens, as are the edges the evaluation inserts to bridge removed punctuation, which carry no single relation. The dev counts are the weights of the weighted regression of § 6 , and the test counts the denominators of the held-out UASL reported there. csubjpass occurs once in dev and not at all in test, so it drops out of every test-set analysis.

Figure B.1: UASL by relation at residual stream checkpoints in different models. Clockwise from the top left: DeBERTa-v3-base, ModernBERT-base, GPT-J-6B, GPT-2-base. Compare Figure 2 .

Figure C.1: Average UASL and standard deviation of per-relation averages, as a function of linear distance between endpoints of a dependency edge, at all odd residual stream checkpoints (after each attention block) and at residual stream checkpoint 16 with optimal UUAS.

Figure C.2: Mean UASL shown as a function of the linear distance for different models. Shaded bands represent one standard deviation across relations. Clockwise from the top left: DeBERTa-v3-base, ModernBERT-base, GPT-J-6B, GPT-2-base. In each case the upper part of the figure shows every checkpoint, while the lower part focused on the best one.

Figure C.3: Fitness of a log-linear decay model across dependency relations for BERT-base, with residual stream evaluated after each full transformer block, and at residual stream checkpoint 16. The colour scale runs from red (

R^{2}=0

) through yellow to green (

R^{2}=1

). Omitted are relations for which a linear regression could not be fit.

Figure C.4: Individual dependency relation data by log linear distance, underlying Figure 5 . Datapoints are UASL values for one linear distance

\delta

with at least five gold edges in the test set. Probing is done at residual stream checkpoint 16, where BERT-base attains its peak UUAS and which was used to fit the regression of § 6 . The line is the least-squares fit of Equation 1 . A low

R^{2}

need not indicate noise: ccomp spans the widest range of linear distances and is close to flat, so its near-zero

R^{2}

reflects the absence of decay rather than scatter about one. auxpass , at the head of the ordering, is fitted on three points.

Figure C.5: Goodness of fit of the log-linear decay model, for DeBERTa-v3-base (Left) and GPT-2-base (Right), both models involving twelve transformer blocks. In both cases a column is the residual stream after an entire transformer block; the two differ in checkpoint indices only because GPT-2 is stored with a post-attention checkpoint interleaved between consecutive post-MLP ones. Rows are the relations, ordered by mean

R^{2}

across residual stream checkpoints.

Figure C.6: Goodness of fit for the log-linear decay model in the case of ModernBERT-base (top) and GPT-J-6B (bottom), respectively with columns with residual stream checkpoints

3,5,\ldots,45

, after each of the 22 blocks, and residual stream checkpoints

1

–

28

, after each of 28 blocks. Rows are as in Figure C.5 .

Relation	Value	Relation	Value
advcl	17	expl	4
ccomp	17	npadvmod	4
parataxis	17	pcomp	4
conj	13	pobj	4
nsubjpass	12	poss	4
cc	11	predet	4

Appendix

Table C.1: For each dependency relation, the table displays the value of

\delta_{90}(r)

: the 90th percentile of its linear distances over the corpus, the linear distance being the number of words separating the head and the dependent (so that

1

denotes adjacent words).

Figure C.7: The four average-linkage dendrograms of the 41 dependency relations.

\tilde{d}_{\mathrm{range}}

measures the differences between the relations’ count-weighted 90th-percentile linear distance while

\tilde{d}_{\mathrm{UASL}}

measures the probe’s UASL curves as a function of linear distance. Dendrograms are computed with a variation of no arc-function UASL (

\alpha=0

, top left, range-only) to only UASL performance as a function of linear distance (

\alpha=1

, bottom right, UASL only). The horizontal axis uses a symmetric-log scale (linear below 0.3, logarithmic above), and the dashed gray vertical line marks 25% of the tallest merge, after which leaf labels are colored to indicate their cluster affiliation.

Figure C.8: Like Figure C.7 , the above dendrograms of the 41 dependency relations measure the differences between the relations’ count-weighted 90th-percentile linear distance. However, unlike Figure C.7 , the range component has been replaced with the Wasserstein-1 distance described in Equation 14 . All other components are the same as in Figure C.7 :

\alpha=1

(bottom right) is a dendrogram computed only with respect to UASL, while

\alpha=0

(top left) is computed only with the new Wasserstein-1 range component, and the horizontal axis and gray vertical line correspond to that in Figure C.7 .

Figure C.9: Model comparison: DeBERTa-v3-base, ModernBERT-base, GPT-J-6B, GPT-2-base (clockwise from top-left). The average-linkage dendrograms of the 41 dependency relations, clustered by UASL, as a function of linear distance (

\alpha=1

in the composite distance of Figure C.7 ), measured over all residual stream checkpoints of the test set. The horizontal axis is a symmetric-log scale, linear below 0.3 and logarithmic above; the dashed grey vertical line marks 25% of the tallest merge, past which leaf labels are coloured by cluster. The four panels share these settings, so they are stated here once rather than repeated as a title above each.

Model	Peak UUAS	ckpt	$R^{2}$	head sim-entropy	mean log length	sd log length
BERT-base	0.815	16	0.736	$-0.082^{***}$	$-0.252^{***}$	$+0.163^{*}$
DeBERTa-v3-base	0.788	9	0.609	$-0.067^{***}$	$-0.226^{***}$	$+0.186^{*}$
ModernBERT-base	0.762	30	0.700	$-0.056^{***}$	$-0.216^{***}$	$+0.103^{\phantom{*}}$
GPT-2-base	0.776	16	0.744	$-0.076^{***}$	$-0.218^{***}$	$+0.143^{*}$
GPT-J-6B	0.783	8	0.746	$-0.069^{***}$	$-0.193^{***}$	$+0.125^{*}$

Appendix

Table D.1: Peak UUAS and WLS regression of § 6 , evaluated for each model at its own optimal residual stream checkpoint. The symbol ∗∗∗ denotes

p<.001

, while ∗ denotes

p<.05

. The dispersion term is marginal for ModernBERT-base (

p=.095

) and significant in all the other cases. All three effects discussed in the main text occur in each model with the same sign and with comparable magnitude.

Figure D.1: Added-variable plots of UASL against each regression predictor, one row per model. Point area is proportional to the relation’s weight in the regression.

added term, $p$ -value
Model	$M_{1}$	$M_{2}$	$M_{3}$
BERT-base	0.678	0.715	0.719
DeBERTa-v3-base	0.523	0.579	0.605
ModernBERT-base	0.660	0.676	0.668
GPT-2-base	0.686	0.723	0.724
GPT-J-6B	0.691	0.726	0.719

Appendix

Table D.2: Adjusted

R^{2}

for the three moments, and

p

-value of the term added at each step (nested

F

-test): adding

M_{2}

helps while adding

M_{3}

does not.

Figure E.1: Dev set UASL curves of rank-64 structural probes trained on RoBERTa-Shuffle-n1’s latent representations. Relations are those of Figure 3 . Residual stream checkpoints numbered as in Hewitt and Manning (2019) .

Figure E.2: Mean UASL as a function of linear distance for RoBERTa-Shuffle-n1, over all 12 post-block residual stream checkpoints (upper panel) and at the best one alone (lower panel). The shaded bands represent one standard deviation across relations. The curve is nearly flat: linear distance carries almost no information.

Figure E.3: Goodness of fit for the log-linear decay model for RoBERTa-Shuffle-n1. Columns are residual stream checkpoints

1

–

12

, after each transformer block and rows are syntactic relations ordered by mean

R^{2}

. The median

R^{2}

is

0.102

, against

0.777

for BERT-base in Figure C.3 .

Predictor	Coef	SE	p	BERT
const	0.100	0.018	$<$ .001	1.045
head sim-entropy	$+0.014$	0.006	.031	$-0.082$
mean log dep length	$-0.002$	0.014	.870	$-0.252$
sd log dep length	$-0.060$	0.031	.058	$+0.163$

Appendix

Table E.1: The regression of Table 1 on RoBERTa-Shuffle-n1, evaluated at its best residual stream checkpoint (

R^{2}=0.195

, adjusted

R^{2}=0.132

,

F(3,38)=3.07

,

p=.039

,

n=42

). The final column repeats the BERT-base coefficient for comparison. The diversity and the dispersion coefficients change sign, and the linear distance coefficient is reduced to less than

1\%

of its magnitude.

Representation of syntax in LLMs through the lens of linear distance and similarity-aware entropy

Abstract

Figures & tables

Appendix

Language Model Probing

Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax

Probing Minimalist Phase Structure in LLMs: What Universal Dependencies Cannot Represent

Implicit Representations of Grammaticality in Language Models

Predictor	Coef	SE	p
const	1.045	0.038	$<$ .001
head sim-entropy	-0.082	0.014	$<$ .001
mean log linear dist.	-0.252	0.030	$<$ .001
sd log dep length	+0.163	0.066	.019

Abstract

Language Model Probing

Explore similar work

Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax

Probing Minimalist Phase Structure in LLMs: What Universal Dependencies Cannot Represent

Implicit Representations of Grammaticality in Language Models