From Lemmas to Dependencies: What Signals Drive Light Verbs Classification?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04127v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 01:41:11 GMT
• Title: From Lemmas to Dependencies: What Signals Drive Light Verbs Classification?
• Abstract summary: Light verb constructions (LVCs) are a challenging class of verbal multiword expressions, especially in Turkish.<n>This paper asks what signals drive LVC classification by systematically restricting model inputs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Light verb constructions (LVCs) are a challenging class of verbal multiword expressions, especially in Turkish, where rich morphology and productive complex predicates create minimal contrasts between idiomatic predicate meanings and literal verb--argument uses. This paper asks what signals drive LVC classification by systematically restricting model inputs. Using UD-derived supervision, we compare lemma-driven baselines (lemma TF--IDF + Logistic Regression; BERTurk trained on lemma sequences), a grammar-only Logistic Regression over UD morphosyntax (UPOS/DEPREL/MORPH), and a full-input BERTurk baseline. We evaluate on a controlled diagnostic set with Random negatives, lexical controls (NLVC), and LVC positives, reporting split-wise performance to expose decision-boundary behavior. Results show that coarse morphosyntax alone is insufficient for robust LVC detection under controlled contrasts, while lexical identity supports LVC judgments but is sensitive to calibration and normalization choices. Overall, Our findings motivate targeted evaluation of Turkish MWEs and show that ``lemma-only'' is not a single, well-defined representation, but one that depends critically on how normalization is operationalized.

Related papers

• Evaluating Language Models on Cross-Language Code Functional Equivalence [6.76025470599609]
  We introduce PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in CPP, Java, and Python.<n>Using this dataset, we evaluate intra- and inter-language equivalence detection across open-weight and proprietary LLMs.<n>We analyze 81 cases of systematic disagreement in which models incorrectly judge functional equivalence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T01:41:00Z)
• Supervision versus Demonstration-Based In-Context Learning for Multiword Expression Classification [0.0]
  Turkish idiomatic light verb constructions (LVCs) are challenging for multiword expression processing.<n>We frame Turkish LVC detection as a binary classification task (literal meaning vs. idiomatic meaning)<n>We evaluate on a manually created controlled set (N=147) with matched negatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T17:34:07Z)
• Fine-tuning vs. In-context Learning in Large Language Models: A Formal Language Learning Perspective [15.30367035674579]
  Large language models (LLMs) operate in two fundamental learning modes - fine-tuning (FT) and in-context learning (ICL)<n>Prior studies comparing FT and ICL have yielded mixed and inconclusive results due to inconsistent experimental setups.<n>We propose a formal language learning task offering precise language boundaries, controlled string sampling, and no data contamination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T12:19:25Z)
• Identifying Influential N-grams in Confidence Calibration via Regression Analysis [53.95767806659635]
  We identify what linguistic expressions are related to confidence by applying the regression method.<n>We show that large language models (LLMs) remain overconfident when reasoning is involved.<n>We reveal that confidence calibration is possible by simply suppressing those overconfident expressions without drops in performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T11:58:49Z)
• Is my model perplexed for the right reason? Contrasting LLMs' Benchmark Behavior with Token-Level Perplexity [6.285055089721361]
  We introduce a principled interpretability framework based on token-level perplexity to test whether models rely on linguistically relevant cues.<n>Our method enables precise, hypothesis-driven analysis without relying on unstable feature-attribution techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T08:00:55Z)
• When Models Examine Themselves: Vocabulary-Activation Correspondence in Self-Referential Processing [0.0]
  We show that self-referential vocabulary tracks concurrent activation dynamics.<n>We identify a direction in activation space that distinguishes self-referential from descriptive processing.<n>Findings indicate that self-report in transformer models can, under appropriate conditions, reliably track internal computational states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T20:44:33Z)
• Seeing to Act, Prompting to Specify: A Bayesian Factorization of Vision Language Action Policy [59.44168425139687]
  BayesVLA is a Bayesian factorization that decomposes the policy into a visual-action prior, supporting seeing-to-act, and a language-conditioned likelihood, enabling prompt-to-specify.<n>Experiments show superior generalization to unseen instructions, objects, and environments compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-12T01:59:23Z)
• DRES: Benchmarking LLMs for Disfluency Removal [27.083825614818135]
  Disfluencies, such as "um," "uh," interjections, parentheticals, and edited statements, remain a persistent challenge for speech-driven systems.<n>Disfluency Removal Evaluation Suite, a controlled text-level benchmark, establishes a reproducible semantic upper bound for this task.<n>DRES builds on human-annotated Switchboard transcripts, isolating disfluency removal from ASR errors and acoustic variability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T17:08:12Z)
• Tokenization and Representation Biases in Multilingual Models on Dialectal NLP Tasks [7.216732751280017]
  We correlate Tokenization Parity (TP) and Information Parity (IP) as measures of representational biases in pre-trained multilingual models.<n>We compare state-of-the-art decoder-only LLMs with encoder-based models across three tasks: dialect classification, topic classification, and extractive question answering.<n>Our analysis reveals that TP is a better predictor of the performance on tasks reliant on syntactic and morphological cues, while IP better predicts performance in semantic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T12:13:53Z)
• Say It Another Way: Auditing LLMs with a User-Grounded Automated Paraphrasing Framework [17.91981142492207]
  We introduce AUGMENT, a framework for generating controlled paraphrases grounded in user behaviors.<n>AUGMENT leverages linguistically informed rules and enforces quality through checks on instruction adherence, semantic similarity, and realism.<n>Case studies show that controlled paraphrases uncover systematic weaknesses that remain obscured under unconstrained variation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T14:17:30Z)
• LatentQA: Teaching LLMs to Decode Activations Into Natural Language [72.87064562349742]
  We introduce LatentQA, the task of answering open-ended questions about model activations in natural language.<n>We propose Latent Interpretation Tuning (LIT), which finetunes a decoder LLM on a dataset of activations and associated question-answer pairs.<n>Our decoder also specifies a differentiable loss that we use to control models, such as debiasing models on stereotyped sentences and controlling the sentiment of generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T18:59:33Z)
• Revisiting subword tokenization: A case study on affixal negation in large language models [57.75279238091522]
  We measure the impact of affixal negation on modern English large language models (LLMs) We conduct experiments using LLMs with different subword tokenization methods. We show that models can, on the whole, reliably recognize the meaning of affixal negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T03:14:27Z)
• Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks [58.32362243122714]
  We evaluate the ability of current-generation auto-regressive language models to handle negation. We show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T01:16:37Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Multi-resolution Interpretation and Diagnostics Tool for Natural Language Classifiers [0.0]
  This paper aims to create more flexible model explainability summaries by segments of observation or clusters of words that are semantically related to each other. In addition, we introduce a root cause analysis method for NLP models, by analyzing representative False Positive and False Negative examples from different segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-06T22:59:02Z)
• APOLLO: A Simple Approach for Adaptive Pretraining of Language Models for Logical Reasoning [73.3035118224719]
  We propose APOLLO, an adaptively pretrained language model that has improved logical reasoning abilities. APOLLO performs comparably on ReClor and outperforms baselines on LogiQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T07:40:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.