Scoring Both Directions: LLMs realize the MRS they cannot reliably parse

Grammaticality and likelihood are distinct notions in human language. Pretrained language models (LMs), which are probabilistic models of language fitted to maximize corpus likelihood, generate grammatically well-formed text and discriminate well between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences in tightly controlled minimal pairs. However, their string probabilities do not sharply discriminate between grammatical and ungrammatical sentences overall. But do LMs implicitly acquire a grammaticality distinction distinct from string probability? We explore this question through studying internal representations of LMs, by training a linear probe on a dataset of grammatical and (synthetic) ungrammatical sentences obtained by applying perturbations to a naturalistic text corpus. We find that this simple grammaticality probe generalizes to human-curated grammaticality judgment benchmarks and outperforms LM probability-based grammaticality judgments. When applied to semantic plausibility benchmarks, in which both members of a minimal pair are grammatical and differ in only plausibility, the probe however performs worse than string probability. The English-trained probe also exhibits nontrivial cross-lingual generalization, outperforming string probabilities on grammaticality benchmarks in numerous other languages. Additionally, probe scores correlate only weakly with string probabilities. These results collectively suggest that LMs acquire to some extent an implicit grammaticality distinction within their hidden layers.

Grammar-constrained generation guarantees syntactic validity, but can substantially degrade semantic quality when the model's preferred outputs are poorly aligned with the imposed grammar. This trade-off is particularly severe when the prompt is underspecified or the model has limited instruction-following ability. Beam search can partially mitigate these failures by exploring multiple valid sequences, but its computational cost grows with beam width, while sequence-level probability is only an imperfect proxy for semantic quality. We introduce GrammarRL, a label-free reinforcement learning method that adapts language models to grammar constraints without requiring annotated data. GrammarRL optimizes the model using two complementary self-supervised rewards derived from its own likelihoods: a direct reward, measuring how likely the constrained output is given the input, and a reverse reward, measuring how well the input can be reconstructed from the generated output. We optimize these rewards with a Reinforce Leave-One-Out (RLOO) objective over groups of grammar-constrained rollouts, augmented with the top-1 beam-search hypothesis and regularized towards a frozen base model. We evaluate GrammarRL on sign language gloss translation, hierarchical text classification, and named entity recognition using Llama models ranging from 1B to 8B parameters. GrammarRL consistently outperforms constrained greedy decoding, with an average improvement of 9.8 points and gains of up to 22.8 BLEU. It matches or outperforms beam search on two of the three tasks while preserving greedy-decoding inference cost. Ablations further show that the two rewards are complementary: either reward alone can underperform the untrained baseline, whereas their combination consistently improves upon it.

Multilingual Large Language Models (mLLMs) leaderboards report per-language accuracy but rarely explain why disparities emerge, leaving systemic biases unattributed and offering practitioners no actionable levers. We first establish that these gaps are systematic rather than artifacts of sampling noise via distribution-free Friedman and Kruskal--Wallis tests, then introduce a two-step Bayesian hierarchical framework that decomposes multilingual performance variance into interpretable components. First, isolating the variance attributable to language identity, we show that observable language features (script, family, typological distance) explain $R^2_{\text{ling}} = 79\%$ of this variance on understanding tasks and $92\%$ on reasoning, with a model's internal representational similarity to English emerging as the dominant predictor across both task buckets. Second, decomposing the full (model$\times$benchmark$\times$language) cube, we find that NLU and reasoning have fundamentally divergent variance profiles: model identity dominates understanding ($66.7\%$ of variance), whereas the benchmark$\times$model interaction dominates reasoning ($46.3\%$). Together these results recast multilingual evaluation from passive performance mapping into an explainable, diagnostic framework with concrete levers for targeting the root drivers of language disparity.