Phase transition on a context-sensitive random language model with short range interactions

Yuma Toji, Jun Takahashi, Vwani Roychowdhury, Hideyuki Miyahara · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Since the random language model was proposed by E. DeGiuli [Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 128301], language models have been investigated intensively from the viewpoint of statistical mechanics. Recently, the existence of a Berezinskii--Kosterlitz--Thouless transition was numerically demonstrated in models with long-range interactions between symbols. In statistical mechanics, it has long been known that long-range interactions can induce phase transitions. Therefore, it has remained unclear whether phase transitions observed in language models originate from genuinely linguistic properties that are absent in conventional spin models. In this study, we construct a random language model with short-range interactions and numerically investigate its statistical properties. Our model belongs to the class of context-sensitive grammars in the Chomsky hierarchy and allows explicit reference to contexts. We find that a phase transition occurs even when the model refers only to contexts whose length remains constant with respect to the sentence length. This result indicates that finite-temperature phase transitions in language models are genuinely induced by the intrinsic nature of language, rather than by long-range interactions.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.