Understanding how the human brain progresses from processing simple linguistic inputs to performing high-level reasoning is a fundamental challenge in neuroscience. While modern large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model neural responses to language, their internal representations are highly "entangled," mixing information about lexicon, syntax, meaning, and reasoning. This entanglement biases conventional brain encoding analyses toward linguistically shallow features (e.g., lexicon and syntax), making it difficult to isolate the neural substrates of cognitively deeper processes. Here, we introduce a residual disentanglement method that computationally isolates these components. By first probing an LM to identify feature-specific layers, our method iteratively regresses out lower-level representations to produce four nearly orthogonal embeddings for lexicon, syntax, meaning, and, critically, reasoning. We used these disentangled embeddings to model intracranial (ECoG) brain recordings from neurosurgical patients listening to natural speech. We show that: 1) This isolated reasoning embedding exhibits unique predictive power, accounting for variance in neural activity not explained by other linguistic features and even extending to the recruitment of visual regions beyond classical language areas.

Large language models (LLMS) have shown increasing effectiveness in Textto-SQL tasks. However, another closely related problem, Cross-System SQL Translation (a.k.a., SQL-to-SQL), which adapts a query written for one database system (e.g., MySQL) into its equivalent one for another system (e.g., ClickHouse), is of great practical importance but remains underexplored. Existing SQL benchmarks are not well-suited for SQL-to-SQL evaluation, which (1) focus on a limited set of database systems (often just SQLite) and (2) cannot capture many system-specific SQL dialects (e.g., customized functions, data types, and syntax rules). Thus, in this paper, we introduce PARROT, a Practical And Realistic BenchmaRk for CrOss-System SQLTranslation. PARROT comprises 598 translation pairs from 38 open-source benchmarks and real-world business services, specifically prepared to challenge system-specific SQL understanding (e.g., LLMS achieve lower than 38.53% accuracy on average). We also provide multiple benchmark variants, including PARROT-Diverse with 28,003 translations (for extensive syntax testing) and PARROT-Simple with 5,306 representative samples (for focused stress testing), covering 22 production-grade database systems.

For an LLM to correctly respond to an instruction it must understand both the semantics and the domain (i.e., subject area) of a given task-instruction pair. However, syntax can also convey implicit information. Recent work shows that \textit{syntactic templates}---frequent sequences of Part-of-Speech (PoS) tags---are prevalent in training data and often appear in model outputs. In this work we characterize syntactic templates, domain, and semantics in task-instruction pairs. We identify cases of spurious correlations between syntax and domain, where models learn to associate a domain with syntax during training; this can sometimes override prompt semantics. Using a synthetic training dataset, we find that the syntactic-domain correlation can lower performance (mean 0.51 +/- 0.06) on entity knowledge tasks in OLMo-2 models (1B-13B). We introduce an evaluation framework to detect this phenomenon in trained models, and show that it occurs on a subset of the FlanV2 dataset in open (OLMo-2-7B; Llama-4-Maverick), and closed (GPT-4o) models. Finally, we present a case study on the implications for LLM security, showing that unintended syntactic-domain correlations can be used to bypass refusals in OLMo-2-7B Instruct and GPT-4o. Our findings highlight two needs: (1) to explicitly test for syntactic-domain correlations, and (2) to ensure \textit{syntactic} diversity in training data, specifically within domains, to prevent such spurious correlations.

Understanding how the human brain progresses from processing simple linguistic inputs to performing high-level reasoning is a fundamental challenge in neuroscience. While modern large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model neural responses to language, their internal representations are highly entangled, mixing information about lexicon, syntax, meaning, and reasoning. This entanglement biases conventional brain encoding analyses toward linguistically shallow features (e.g., lexicon and syntax), making it difficult to isolate the neural substrates of cognitively deeper processes. Here, we introduce a residual disentanglement method that computationally isolates these components. By first probing an LM to identify feature-specific layers, our method iteratively regresses out lower-level representations to produce four nearly orthogonal embeddings for lexicon, syntax, meaning, and, critically, reasoning. We used these disentangled embeddings to model intracranial (ECoG) brain recordings from neurosurgical patients listening to natural speech. We show that: 1) This isolated reasoning embedding exhibits unique predictive power, accounting for variance in neural activity not explained by other linguistic features and even extending to the recruitment of visual regions beyond classical language areas.

Another possible reason is that it is unclear if the low signal-to-noise ratio of neuroimaging tools such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) can allow us to reveal the correlates of complex (and perhaps subtle) syntactic representations.

While studying semantics in the brain, neuroscientists use two approaches. One is to identify areas that are correlated with semantic processing load. Another is to find areas that are predicted by the semantic representation of the stimulus words. However, most studies of syntax have focused only on identifying areas correlated with syntactic processing load. One possible reason for this discrepancy is that representing syntactic structure in an embedding space such that it can be used to model brain activity is a non-trivial computational problem. Another possible reason is that it is unclear if the low signal-to-noise ratio of neuroimaging tools such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) can allow us to reveal the correlates of complex (and perhaps subtle) syntactic representations. In this study, we propose novel multi-dimensional features that encode information about the syntactic structure of sentences.

While promising, graph reasoners based on Large Language Models (LLMs) lack built-in invariance to symmetries in graph representations. Operating on sequential graph serializations, LLMs can produce different outputs under node reindexing, edge reordering, or formatting changes, raising robustness concerns. We systematically analyze these effects, studying how fine-tuning impacts encoding sensitivity as well generalization on unseen tasks. We propose a principled decomposition of graph serializations into node labeling, edge encoding, and syntax, and evaluate LLM robustness to variations of each of these factors on a comprehensive benchmarking suite. We also contribute a novel set of spectral tasks to further assess generalization abilities of fine-tuned reasoners. Results show that larger (non-fine-tuned) models are more robust. Fine-tuning reduces sensitivity to node relabeling but may increase it to variations in structure and format, while it does not consistently improve performance on unseen tasks.

Intransitive verbs fall into two different syntactic classes, unergatives and unaccusatives. It has long been argued that verbs describing an agentive action are more likely to appear in an unergative syntax, and those describing a telic event to appear in an unaccusative syntax. However, recent work by Kim et al. (2024) found that human ratings for agentivity and telicity were a poor predictor of the syntactic behavior of intransitives. Here we revisit this question using interpretable dimensions, computed from seed words on opposite poles of the agentive and telic scales. Our findings support the link between unergativity/unaccusativity and agentivity/telicity, and demonstrate that using interpretable dimensions in conjunction with human judgments can offer valuable evidence for semantic properties that are not easily evaluated in rating tasks.