Abstract
Large language models are typically trained with next-token prediction (NTP), which rewards predicting specific tokens rather than explicitly accounting for the semantic similarities between different words or expressions. Prior work has addressed this limitation by augmenting training data with minimally varying sentences that replace a target word with conceptually related alternatives, e.g., "The tired coach ran home" $\rightarrow$ {"The tired trainer ran home", "The tired instructor ran home", ...}. Such concept augmentation improves performance, but it remains unclear whether its effectiveness depends on where in the sentence the concept is expressed. We reproduce and extend prior work $\textit{beyond nouns}$ to verbs and adjectives, asking whether the part of speech (POS) carrying the concept signal affects perplexity and downstream performance. We find different patterns across evaluation settings: concept augmentation improves perplexity most consistently on news, independent of the POS used, whereas verbs provide the most reliable downstream gains. Despite these behavioral differences, representational analyses using CKA and linear probing show that the conditions yielding the largest downstream gains are not necessarily those that most alter the model's internal representations. Together, these results suggest that the effectiveness of concept augmentation depends on where and how conceptual information is introduced during training.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29843
