This work investigates how instruction-tuned Transformer models (LLaMA and Mistral) encode discourse relations in English, with a particular focus on the contrasting relations of causation and antithesis, suggesting asymmetric representation of discourse-based reasoning.
Abstract
Discourse relations provide document structure, critical to language understanding and enabling language model performance and ethicality. In this work, we investigate how instruction-tuned Transformer models (LLaMA and Mistral) encode discourse relations in English, with a particular focus on the contrasting relations of causation and antithesis. Framing the task as a next-token prediction task and applying a suite of interpretability techniques to test model internals, our findings show that certain early layers make predictive decisions at mid-sequence tokens, while some mid-level layers finalize their decisions closer to the last token. Most of the remaining layers primarily propagate earlier decisions rather than actively influencing them. Additionally, we observe that some layers exhibit a preference for one answer over alternatives, suggesting asymmetric representation of discourse-based reasoning.\footnote{Our code is available at https://github.com/abhidipbhattacharyya/causation_vs_antithesis}
It is shown that logical incoherencies follow from an LLM’s computation of its internal representations, in particular from an LLM’s failure to take account of the different roles that different expressions may play in determining content.
Nicholas Asher, Swarnadeep Bhar· Topoi· 0 citations
This work presents the first systematic study of inverse relation directionality in LLMs, using a benchmark consisting of 5,457 instances spanning 27 distinct inverse relation labels and reveals systematic asymmetries in inverse relation classification across LLMs.
The results show that models often do not affirm culmination but nevertheless accept the corresponding simple-past hypothesis, a pattern the authors characterize as Sufficiency Bias, and show that prompting interventions produce a Decision Shift among labels without reliably improving the underlying semantic understanding and reasoning.
Foundation models place language throughout embodied agents, but its presence does not show what it contributes or how well that contribution is grounded. This survey separates these two questions. We define five non-exclusive functional roles for language: Specification, Embodied Representation, Action Orchestration, Grounding Regulation, and Execution Coupling. For each role, we trace the path from linguistic content to its embodied consumer and identify the observations or interventions that can test the claimed responsibility. Applying this framework to the reviewed literature reveals a recurring gap between functional use and evidential support. Interpretable or revised linguistic intermediates may be incorrect, go unused, or fail to affect later behavior. Even when actions are directly conditioned on language, system-level success does not by itself isolate language's contribution. We therefore evaluate grounding claim by claim, asking whether the reported evidence supports the specific responsibility assigned to language. Using role claims rather than architectures as the unit of comparison allows us to compare modular and end-to-end embodied agents without extending conclusions beyond the reported evidence.
Yifan Guo, Chenghao Li, Zhu Wang et al.· 0 citations
It is found that while all models show sensitivity to existential presupposition across syntactic embeddings, determiner types and contextual cues, their behaviour differs markedly in strength and systematicity, with NLI-fine-tuned autoregressive models exhibiting the most coherent and stable projection patterns.
Marie-Léontine Wörgötter, Shiyang Lai, Sebastian Schuster· International Conference on...· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are known to be sensitive to prompt and input formulations. However, existing studies have focused on lexical realization and largely ignored constructional choice. This paper studies whether linguistic construction can systematically shift LLM decisions and where these shifts can be causally localized inside the model. We use political stance judgment as a meaning-sensitive case study and extend an English political statements dataset, resulting in six controlled linguistic rewrite types that preserve or invert the meaning of a statement. Experiments on four open-weight models show that stance instability affect both meaning-preserving and meaning-inversing rewrites. Because output shifts reveal that rewrites affect stance, but not where in the model, we apply activation patching, where activations from the original statement are substituted into the forward pass for the rewritten statement and measure which components recover the original stance distribution. The results show that mid-to-late decoder layers, especially block outputs at the final prompt position, provide the strongest restoration signal.
Langchen Huang, Sebastian Padó, Franziska Weeber· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
