Are representations built from the ground up? An empirical examination of local composition in language models
Emmy Liu, Graham Neubig
Abstract
Compositionality, the phenomenon where the meaning of a phrase can be derived from its constituent parts, is a hallmark of human language. At the same time, many phrases are non-compositional, carrying a meaning beyond that of each part in isolation. Representing both of these types of phrases is critical for language understanding, but it is an open question whether modern language models (LMs) learn to do so; in this work we examine this question. We first formulate a problem of predicting the LM-internal representations of longer phrases given those of their constituents. We find that the representation of a parent phrase can be predicted with some accuracy given an affine transformation of its children. While we would expect the predictive accuracy to correlate with human judgments of semantic compositionality, we find this is largely not the case, indicating that LMs may not accurately distinguish between compositional and non-compositional phrases. We perform a variety of analyses, shedding light on when different varieties of LMs do and do not generate compositional representations, and discuss implications for future modeling work. 1
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4a39ac2c-11bd-4f32-8685-7116028e2e70Cited by top-tier papers3
- Transformers are uninterpretable with myopic methods: a case study with bounded Dyck grammarsKaiyue Wen, Yuchen Li, Bingbin Liu, Andrej RisteskiNeurIPS 2023 · 32 citations
- Divergences between Language Models and Human BrainsYuchen Zhou, Emmy Liu, Graham Neubig, Michael J. Tarr et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 8 citations
- Bridging Continuous and Discrete Spaces: Interpretable Sentence Representation Learning via Compositional OperationsJames Y. Huang, Wenlin Yao, Kaiqiang Song, Hongming Zhang et al.EMNLP 2023
Builds on7
- Deberta: decoding-Enhanced Bert with Disentangled AttentionPengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Weizhu ChenICLR 2021 · 3,729 citations
- On the Sentence Embeddings from Pre-trained Language ModelsBohan Li, Hao Zhou, Junxian He, Mingxuan Wang et al.EMNLP 2020 · 538 citations
- Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic DataDaniel Keysers, Nathanael Schärli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman et al.ICLR 2020 · 401 citations
- Assessing Phrasal Representation and Composition in TransformersLang Yu, Allyson EttingerEMNLP 2020 · 60 citations
- Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description LengthElena Voita, Ivan TitovEMNLP 2020 · 34 citations
Related papers
- Understanding Subword Compositionality of Large Language ModelsQiwei Peng, Yekun Chai, Anders SøgaardEMNLP 2025
- Geometric Signatures of Compositionality Across a Language Model's LifetimeJin Hwa Lee, Thomas Jiralerspong, Lei Yu, Yoshua Bengio et al.ACL 2025
- The Paradox of the Compositionality of Natural Language: A Neural Machine Translation Case StudyVerna Dankers, Elia Bruni, Dieuwke HupkesACL 2022
- Characterizing intrinsic compositionality in transformers with Tree ProjectionsShikhar Murty, Pratyusha Sharma, Jacob Andreas, Christopher D. ManningICLR 2023 · 13 citations
- COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic InterpretationNajoung Kim, Tal LinzenEMNLP 2020 · 149 citations
