← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-srw.32 · 记录 #1
Garden Path Recovery in Causal and Masked Language Models
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:44
摘要
Garden-path sentences offer a controlled probe of English incremental sentence processing because they require a reader to revise an initially plausible parse when a later region disambiguates the structure. We present an architecture-aware comparison of garden-path recovery in causal and masked language models using 100 English garden-path/control pairs (200 sentences) spanning three constructions: NP/Z, where a noun phrase is initially read as a direct object but must be reanalyzed as the subject of a zero-complement clause; NP/S, where a noun phrase must be reanalyzed as the subject of an embedded sentence; and MV/RR, where an apparent main verb must be reanalyzed as a reduced relative modifier. Causal models are evaluated with left-to-right word surprisal, whereas masked models are evaluated with pseudo-surprisal derived from masked language model scoring. Beyond the disambiguating word, we analyze cumulative excess surprisal, area-under-curve recovery summaries, and layer-wise hidden-state divergence between each garden-path sentence and its minimally different control. Across the audit-valid model set, causal models show larger within-model disambiguation effects than masked models overall, with the clearest family-level difference on NP/Z constructions. We interpret this difference cautiously because surprisal and pseudo-surprisal are not numerically commensurable across architectures or tokenizers. The results nevertheless show that architecture changes which recovery signals are observable: decoder-only models exhibit sharper online disruption at the point of syntactic revision, while bidirectional encoders appear comparatively buffered at the disambiguator due to right-context access. More broadly, the findings argue that garden-path evaluation should emphasize recovery dynamics, not merely end-state plausibility or task accuracy.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Garden Path Recovery in Causal and Masked Language Models
Garden-path sentences offer a controlled probe of English incremental sentence processing because they require a reader to revise an initially plausible parse when a later region disambiguates the structure. We present an architecture-aware comparison of garden-path recovery in causal and masked language models using 100 English garden-path/control pairs (200 sentences) spanning three constructions: NP/Z, where a noun phrase is initially read as a direct object but must be reanalyzed as the subject of a zero-complement clause; NP/S, where a noun phrase must be reanalyzed as the subject of an embedded sentence; and MV/RR, where an apparent main verb must be reanalyzed as a reduced relative modifier. Causal models are evaluated with left-to-right word surprisal, whereas masked models are evaluated with pseudo-surprisal derived from masked language model scoring. Beyond the disambiguating word, we analyze cumulative excess surprisal, area-under-curve recovery summaries, and layer-wise hidden-state divergence between each garden-path sentence and its minimally different control. Across the audit-valid model set, causal models show larger within-model disambiguation effects than masked models overall, with the clearest family-level difference on NP/Z constructions. We interpret this difference cautiously because surprisal and pseudo-surprisal are not numerically commensurable across architectures or tokenizers. The results nevertheless show that architecture changes which recovery signals are observable: decoder-only models exhibit sharper online disruption at the point of syntactic revision, while bidirectional encoders appear comparatively buffered at the disambiguator due to right-context access. More broadly, the findings argue that garden-path evaluation should emphasize recovery dynamics, not merely end-state plausibility or task accuracy.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗