Cited by 107Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Why does surprisal from larger transformer-based language models provide a poorer fit to human reading times?

Open access
Oh, Byung-Doh, Schuler, William·2023·Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

This work presents a linguistic analysis into why larger Transformer-based pre-trained language models with more parameters and lower perplexity nonetheless yield surprisal estimates that are less predictive of human reading times. First, regression analyses show a strictly monotonic, positive log-linear relationship between perplexity and fit to reading times for the more recently released five GPT-Neo variants and eight OPT variants on two separate datasets, replicating earlier results limited to just GPT-2 (Oh et al., 2022). Subsequently, analysis of residual errors reveals a systematic deviation of the larger variants, such as underpredicting reading times of named entities and making compensatory overpredictions for reading times of function words such as modals and conjunctions. These results suggest that the propensity of larger Transformer-based models to ‘memorize’ sequences during training makes their surprisal estimates diverge from humanlike expectations, which warrants caution in using pre-trained language models to study human language processing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/tacl_a_00548

Cites

49 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Christian Clark and William Schuler. 2022. Ev- idence for composition operations in broad- coverage sentence processing. In 35th Annual Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
  2. Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1983. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, MA.
  3. Alan Kennedy, Robin Hill, and Joël Pynte. 2003. The Dundee Corpus. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Eye Movement.
  4. Soo Hyun Ryu and Richard L. Lewis. 2022. Using Transformer language model to integrate sur- prisal, entropy, and working memory retrieval accounts of sentence processing. In 35th Annual Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
  5. Cory Shain, Marten van Schijndel, and William Schuler. 2018. Deep syntactic annotations for broad-coverage psycholinguistic modeling. In Workshop on Linguistic and Neuro-Cognitive Resources.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oh, B.-D., & Schuler, W.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Oh, Byung-Doh
  • Schuler, William
Venue
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2023
Volume
11
Pages
336-350
ISSN
2307-387X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4361766487
Cited by
107
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 30
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1816891)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
information content, reading time, transformer language models, perplexity, model size, GPT-Neo, OPT, named entities, function words, memorization, human language processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review