Initially, those scholars employ these historical elements to forecast whether the criminal would re-offend. Subsequently, the binary outcome of recidivism serves as a proxy variable for recidivism risk. Some computer scientists also employ the probability (or score) assigned by the model for an offender's likelihood of re-offense as a gauge for their recidivism risk (Etzler et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). While such configurations may seem intuitively compelling, they often embody an oversimplified and deterministic viewpoint, which stands in contradiction to contemporary social science theories. Firstly, historical factors alone are insufficient predictors of human actions.

A sharp tension exists about the nature of human language between two opposite parties: those who believe that statistical surface distributions, in particular using measures like surprisal, provide a better understanding of language processing, vs. those who believe that discrete hierarchical structures implementing linguistic information such as syntactic ones are a better tool. In this paper, we show that this dichotomy is a false one. Relying on the fact that statistical measures can be defined on the basis of either structural or non-structural models, we provide empirical evidence that only models of surprisal that reflect syntactic structure are able to account for language regularities.