@inproceedings{lu-etal-2026-encoded,
title = "Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in {LLM} Syntax",
author = "Lu, Zhenyan and
Wang, He and
Huang, Xiaohui",
editor = "Zhang, Yue and
Xu, Ruifeng and
Purwarianti, Ayu and
Rong, Tong and
Suzuki, Jun",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 5th Conference of the {A}sia-Pacific Chapter of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = nov,
year = "2026",
address = "Hengqin, China",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.aacl-long.140/",
pages = "3063--3080",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-439-2",
abstract = "A language model can fail a syntactic test in two distinct ways: by not encoding the relevant structure, or by encoding it but failing to use it at the output. Behavioral evaluation alone cannot tell these apart. We propose a three-level evaluation framework (behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability) measured on the same items under the same binary decision. Using a compact trilingual (English, Chinese, German) control-dependency benchmark, we find that probe recoverability exceeds or equals LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds or equals behavioral deployment, across seven models and all three languages in the aggregate. The recoverability surplus is never negative across all 14 (model, task) conditions. The disconnect concentrates in subject-control, where a nearest-noun heuristic gives the wrong answer. The single largest gap (0.653) appears on Qwen3-0.6B Instruct in question answering. The gap persists at Qwen3-14B Instruct. Instruction tuning degrades deployment more than encoding in percentage terms. We rule out option-position bias, late-layer erasure, output-formatting artifacts, and probe-training variance. The pattern is consistent with decoding that favors surface shortcuts, and the behavior-probe gap measures the strength of that preference. Activation patching shows the gap is layer-localized. Under instruction tuning, the LM-head-decoded layer shifts approximately ten layers later than the probe-decoded layer. These findings argue that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode, while probing alone overstates what they deploy."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="lu-etal-2026-encoded">
<titleInfo>
<title>Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Zhenyan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">He</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Xiaohui</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Huang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-11</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 5th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yue</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zhang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ruifeng</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Xu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ayu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Purwarianti</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Tong</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Rong</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jun</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Suzuki</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Hengqin, China</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-439-2</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>A language model can fail a syntactic test in two distinct ways: by not encoding the relevant structure, or by encoding it but failing to use it at the output. Behavioral evaluation alone cannot tell these apart. We propose a three-level evaluation framework (behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability) measured on the same items under the same binary decision. Using a compact trilingual (English, Chinese, German) control-dependency benchmark, we find that probe recoverability exceeds or equals LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds or equals behavioral deployment, across seven models and all three languages in the aggregate. The recoverability surplus is never negative across all 14 (model, task) conditions. The disconnect concentrates in subject-control, where a nearest-noun heuristic gives the wrong answer. The single largest gap (0.653) appears on Qwen3-0.6B Instruct in question answering. The gap persists at Qwen3-14B Instruct. Instruction tuning degrades deployment more than encoding in percentage terms. We rule out option-position bias, late-layer erasure, output-formatting artifacts, and probe-training variance. The pattern is consistent with decoding that favors surface shortcuts, and the behavior-probe gap measures the strength of that preference. Activation patching shows the gap is layer-localized. Under instruction tuning, the LM-head-decoded layer shifts approximately ten layers later than the probe-decoded layer. These findings argue that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode, while probing alone overstates what they deploy.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">lu-etal-2026-encoded</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.aacl-long.140/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-11</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>3063</start>
<end>3080</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax
%A Lu, Zhenyan
%A Wang, He
%A Huang, Xiaohui
%Y Zhang, Yue
%Y Xu, Ruifeng
%Y Purwarianti, Ayu
%Y Rong, Tong
%Y Suzuki, Jun
%S Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 5th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2026
%8 November
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Hengqin, China
%@ 979-8-89176-439-2
%F lu-etal-2026-encoded
%X A language model can fail a syntactic test in two distinct ways: by not encoding the relevant structure, or by encoding it but failing to use it at the output. Behavioral evaluation alone cannot tell these apart. We propose a three-level evaluation framework (behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability) measured on the same items under the same binary decision. Using a compact trilingual (English, Chinese, German) control-dependency benchmark, we find that probe recoverability exceeds or equals LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds or equals behavioral deployment, across seven models and all three languages in the aggregate. The recoverability surplus is never negative across all 14 (model, task) conditions. The disconnect concentrates in subject-control, where a nearest-noun heuristic gives the wrong answer. The single largest gap (0.653) appears on Qwen3-0.6B Instruct in question answering. The gap persists at Qwen3-14B Instruct. Instruction tuning degrades deployment more than encoding in percentage terms. We rule out option-position bias, late-layer erasure, output-formatting artifacts, and probe-training variance. The pattern is consistent with decoding that favors surface shortcuts, and the behavior-probe gap measures the strength of that preference. Activation patching shows the gap is layer-localized. Under instruction tuning, the LM-head-decoded layer shifts approximately ten layers later than the probe-decoded layer. These findings argue that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode, while probing alone overstates what they deploy.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.aacl-long.140/
%P 3063-3080
Markdown (Informal)
[Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax](https://aclanthology.org/2026.aacl-long.140/) (Lu et al., AACL-IJCNLP 2026)
ACL