SYNTOLOGY HomeExplorerAtlasCodeMethodologyAboutDevelopersFeedPricing
Paper · 2609.29848 · September 2026

Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax

He Wang, Zhenyan Lu, Xiaohui Huang

arXiv · PDF

Code that ran

We have not lifted any functions out of this paper's repositories yet, so there is nothing we have run. The repositories linked to it are listed below.

Repositories linked to this paper

Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.

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.

For agents

The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:

get_harvested_code_for_paper("2609.29848")
get_code_for_paper("2609.29848")
have("2609.29848")

The run record, dated, one paper per request, free:

curl https://syntology.ai/api/ran/2609.29848.json

A badge for a README (the split and the date, never a ratio):

[![Syntology run record](https://syntology.ai/api/ran/2609.29848.svg)](https://syntology.ai/paper/2609.29848)

Connect an agent — have() is free.