Explain-then-Process: Using Grammar Prompting to Enhance Grammatical Acceptability Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) can explain grammatical rules, yet they often fail to apply those rules when judging sentence acceptability.We present grammar prompting, an explain-then-process paradigm: a large LLM first produces a concise explanation of the relevant syntactic phenomenon, then that explanation is fed back as additional context to the target model -either an LLM or a smaller language model (SLM) -before deciding which sentence of a minimal pair is grammatical.On the English BLiMP, Chinese SLING, and Russian RuBLiMP benchmarks, this simple prompt design yields substantial improvements over strong baselines across a wide range of syntactic phenomena.Feeding an LLMs metalinguistic explanation back to the target model bridges the gap between knowing a rule and using it.On SLMs, grammar prompting alone trims the average LLM-SLM accuracy gap by 20%, and when paired with chain-of-thought, by 56% (13.0 pp 5.8 pp), all at negligible cost.The lightweight, language-agnostic cue lets low-cost SLMs approach frontier-LLM performance in multilingual settings.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1015
Primary Topic
Educational and Psychological Assessments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Explain-then-Process: Using Grammar Prompting to Enhance Grammatical Acceptability Judgments

So Young Lee, Amber Shore, Ameeta Agrawal, Russell Scheinberg
Educational and Psychological Assessments
article

Explain-then-Process: Using Grammar Prompting to Enhance Grammatical Acceptability Judgments

So Young Lee, Amber Shore, Ameeta Agrawal, Russell Scheinberg
article en

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can explain grammatical rules, yet they often fail to apply those rules when judging sentence acceptability.We present grammar prompting, an explain-then-process paradigm: a large LLM first produces a concise explanation of the relevant syntactic phenomenon, then that explanation is fed back as additional context to the target model -either an LLM or a smaller language model (SLM) -before deciding which sentence of a minimal pair is grammatical.On the English BLiMP, Chinese SLING, and Russian RuBLiMP benchmarks, this simple prompt design yields substantial improvements over strong baselines across a wide range of syntactic phenomena.Feeding an LLMs metalinguistic explanation back to the target model bridges the gap between knowing a rule and using it.On SLMs, grammar prompting alone trims the average LLM-SLM accuracy gap by 20%, and when paired with chain-of-thought, by 56% (13.0 pp 5.8 pp), all at negligible cost.The lightweight, language-agnostic cue lets low-cost SLMs approach frontier-LLM performance in multilingual settings.

Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Educational and Psychological Assessments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.