Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.08085

Linguistic boundaries emerge from pressure-constrained processing dynamics

Rui He·Philipp Homan·Wolfram Hinzen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Human cognition organizes continuous experience into bounded units while maintaining continuity across them. Linguistic elements are also organized into bounded structural units such as words and phrases, with sentence marking the final bound of a grammatical construction process. How do such boundaries emerge? We propose boundaries emerge from interacting demands to maintain unresolved dependencies, integrate completed relations, and update semantic context, with structural completion allowing but not determining closure. First, in a generative simulation without predefined boundary positions or constituent labels, these demands produced sentence-like segment-length distributions and distinct characteristic timescales, with structural completion allowing but not determining closure. Near boundaries, unresolved dependency load declined, integration cost peaked, and accumulated pressure reset. Then, we tested whether same demands predicted human listeners' boundary choices during comprehension. Listeners were more likely to mark boundaries with fewer unresolved dependencies, higher integration cost and semantic mismatch, and elevated preceding memory load, beyond syntactic and prosodic cues. Third, in naturalistic self-paced reading, sentence-final slowing coincided with declining memory load and increasing integration cost and semantic mismatch, broadly consistent with the simulation. Processing same narratives with a large language model revealed increased local intrinsic dimensionality and straighter hidden-state trajectories at sentence endings, followed by larger representational updates. Boundary explained additional variation in reading time and hidden-state geometry beyond processing demands, but considerably less in next-token surprisal. Together, these findings suggest linguistic boundaries emerge as discrete manifestations of transitions in continuous processing dynamics.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rui He, Philipp Homan, Wolfram Hinzen. 2026-11-05. Linguistic boundaries emerge from pressure-constrained processing dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08085

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Adamas: Hadamard Sparse Attention for Efficient Long-Context Inference

Large language models (LLMs) now support context windows of hundreds of thousands to millions of tokens, enabling applications such as long-document summarization, large-scale code synthesis, multi-document question answering and persistent multi-turn dialogue. However, such extended contexts exacerbate the quadratic cost of self-attention, leading to severe latency in autoregressive decoding. Existing sparse attention methods reduce these costs by attending to only a subset of key-value (KV) tokens, but fixed or coarse-grained selection strategies can miss important tokens or retain substantial redundancy under constrained token budgets. We introduce \textbf{Adamas}, an accurate and efficient token-level sparse attention mechanism for long-context inference. Adamas applies the Hadamard transform, bucketization and 2-bit compression to produce compact representations, and uses lightweight distance-based estimation for efficient top-$k$ candidate selection. The selected positions are then used to gather the corresponding original KV states for sparse attention. Comprehensive evaluations show that Adamas maintains near-lossless performance within the effective context length of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. In efficiency evaluations, Adamas achieves up to $6.5\times$ self-attention speedup and $1.7\times$ end-to-end decoding speedup at a 32K context length. Adamas also maintains performance comparable to full attention on challenging long-form reasoning benchmarks, including AIME 2024 and AIME 2025.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

An Empirical Analysis of Static Analysis Methods for Detection and Mitigation of Code Library Hallucinations

Despite extensive research, Large Language Models continue to hallucinate when generating code, particularly when using libraries. On NL-to-code benchmarks that require library use, we find that LLMs generate code that uses non-existent library features in 8.1-40% of responses. One intuitive approach for detection and mitigation of hallucinations is static analysis. In this paper, we analyse the potential of static analysis tools, both in terms of what they can solve and what they cannot. We find that static analysis tools can detect 16-70% of all errors, and 14-85% of library hallucinations, with performance varying by LLM and dataset. Through manual analysis, we identify cases a static method could not plausibly catch, which gives an upper bound on their potential from 48.5% to 77%. Overall, we show that static analysis methods are cheap method for addressing some forms of hallucination, and we quantify how far short of solving the problem they will always be.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Human vs. LLM Annotation in Active Learning for TikTok Hate Speech Detection

Annotating data remains a costly bottleneck for supervised NLP. Active learning (AL) reduces the number of human labels needed by selecting only the most informative instances, while instruction-tuned LLMs attack the same bottleneck from the other side, making labels cheap enough to annotate entire corpora. This raises two questions: can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be cheaply labeled? We investigate both by training supervised hate speech classifiers on a new dataset of 278K German political TikTok comments, comparing human and LLM annotation under matched conditions. LLM annotation at scale outperforms human-supervised classifiers at roughly one-tenth the cost, for both a closed-source (GPT-5.2) and an open-weight (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) LLM, and the advantage is robust under soft-label evaluation. It hinges on the annotation interface: only a two-question decomposition mirroring the human annotation task unlocks it. AL provides no reliable advantage over random sampling in our prefiltered pool. Error structure depends on the LLM: only GPT-5.2 matches the human FP/FN balance, while other variants over-flag border-control and economic-competition discourse. Humans remain essential as evaluators; for training labels, the question shifts to which LLM, which interface, and what shape of pool.

cs.CL↗