Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?

Q1 Social Sciences
Open Mind Pub Date : 2026-07-07 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1162/OPMI.a.365
Joseph M Denning, Xiaohan Hannah Guo, Bryor Snefjella, Idan A Blank
{"title":"Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?","authors":"Joseph M Denning, Xiaohan Hannah Guo, Bryor Snefjella, Idan A Blank","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Language models (LMs) are commonly criticized for not \"understanding\" language. However, many critiques focus on cognitive abilities that, in humans, are distinct from language processing. Here, we instead study a kind of understanding tightly linked to language: inferring \"who did what to whom\" (thematic roles) in a sentence. Does the central training objective of LMs-word prediction-result in sentence representations that capture thematic roles? In two experiments, we characterized sentence representations in four LMs that have been proposed as models of human language processing. The overall representational similarity of sentence pairs did not reflect whether they had the same agent/patient assignments or opposite agent/patient assignments. Furthermore, we found limited evidence that thematic role information was available in any subspace of hidden activations. However, some attention heads robustly captured thematic roles, independently of syntax. Therefore, LMs can extract thematic roles but this information influences their representations weakly.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"923-950"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13379307/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/OPMI.a.365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Language models (LMs) are commonly criticized for not "understanding" language. However, many critiques focus on cognitive abilities that, in humans, are distinct from language processing. Here, we instead study a kind of understanding tightly linked to language: inferring "who did what to whom" (thematic roles) in a sentence. Does the central training objective of LMs-word prediction-result in sentence representations that capture thematic roles? In two experiments, we characterized sentence representations in four LMs that have been proposed as models of human language processing. The overall representational similarity of sentence pairs did not reflect whether they had the same agent/patient assignments or opposite agent/patient assignments. Furthermore, we found limited evidence that thematic role information was available in any subspace of hidden activations. However, some attention heads robustly captured thematic roles, independently of syntax. Therefore, LMs can extract thematic roles but this information influences their representations weakly.

语言模型知道谁对谁做了什么吗?
语言模型(LMs)通常因不能“理解”语言而受到批评。然而,许多批评集中在人类的认知能力上,这与语言处理是不同的。在这里,我们转而研究一种与语言紧密相关的理解:在句子中推断“谁对谁做了什么”(主题角色)。lms的中心训练目标——词预测——是否会产生捕捉主题角色的句子表征?在两个实验中,我们对四个lm中的句子表征进行了表征,这些lm已被提出作为人类语言处理的模型。句子对的整体表征相似性并不反映它们是否具有相同的代理/患者分配还是相反的代理/患者分配。此外,我们发现主题角色信息在隐藏激活的任何子空间中可用的证据有限。然而,一些注意力头在独立于语法的情况下强有力地捕获了主题角色。因此,LMs可以提取主题角色,但这些信息对其表示的影响较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书