Recent studies employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to test the Argument from the Poverty of the Stimulus (APS) have yielded contrasting results across syntactic phenomena. This paper investigates the hypothesis that characteristics of the stimuli used in recent studies, including lexical ambiguities and structural complexities, may confound model performance. A methodology is proposed for re-evaluating LLM competence on syntactic prediction, focusing on GPT-2. This involves: 1) establishing a baseline on previously used (both filtered and unfiltered) stimuli, and 2) generating a new, refined dataset using a state-of-the-art (SOTA) generative LLM (Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview) guided by linguistically-informed templates designed to mitigate identified confounds. Our preliminary findings indicate that GPT-2 demonstrates notably improved performance on these refined PG stimuli compared to baselines, suggesting that stimulus quality significantly influences outcomes in surprisal-based evaluations of LLM syntactic competency.

Recent studies probing the Argument from the Poverty of the Stimulus (APS) have applied Large Language Models (LLMs) to test the learnability of complex syntax through surprisal-based metrics. However, divergent conclusions raise questions concerning the insights these metrics offer. While Wilcox et al. (2024) used direct minimal pair comparisons (the “wh-effect”) to demonstrate that models successfully generalise knowledge of filler-gap dependencies, Lan et al. (2024) used a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) metric and found that models largely fail on parasitic gaps (PGs). This paper argues that the direct minimal pair approach offers greater diagnostic transparency. We demonstrate this by generating a full 8-permutation paradigm of refined PG stimuli and evaluating the GPT-2 model used in previous studies with a systematic Wilcox-style wh-effect analysis. Our results show that GPT-2 succeeds across all four tested conditions, indicating robust knowledge of filler-gap licensing principles even in complex PG environments. This finding, which contrasts with the more ambiguous results from DiD-style metrics, suggests that the choice of evaluation metric is critical for assessing an LLM’s syntactic competence.