EMNLP Findings2023
Transformer-Based Language Model Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokens
Byung-Doh Oh, William Schuler
Abstract
Recent psycholinguistic studies have drawn conflicting conclusions about the relationship between the quality of a language model and the ability of its surprisal estimates to predict human reading times, which has been speculated to be due to the large gap in both the amount of training data and model capacity across studies. The current work aims to consolidate these findings by evaluating surprisal estimates from Transformer-based language model variants that vary systematically in the amount of training data and model capacity on their ability to predict human reading times. The results show that surprisal estimates from most variants with contemporary model capacities provide the best fit after seeing about two billion training tokens, after which they begin to diverge from humanlike expectations. Additionally, newly-trained smaller model variants reveal a 'tipping point' at convergence, after which the decrease in language model perplexity begins to result in poorer fits to human reading times. These results suggest that the massive amount of training data is mainly responsible for the poorer fit achieved by surprisal from larger pre-trained language models, and that a certain degree of model capacity is necessary for Transformer-based language models to capture humanlike expectations.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 9 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers9
- Priors in time: Missing inductive biases for language model interpretabilityEkdeep Singh Lubana, Can Rager, Sai Sumedh R. Hindupur, Valérie Costa et al.ICLR 2026 · 19 citations
- Anything Goes? A Crosslinguistic Study of (Im)possible Language Learning in LMsXiulin Yang, Tatsuya Aoyama, Yuekun Yao, Ethan WilcoxACL 2025 · 9 citations
- Temperature-scaling surprisal estimates improve fit to human reading times - but does it do so for the "right reasons"?Tong Liu, Iza Skrjanec, Vera DembergACL 2024 · 3 citations
- How to Compute the Probability of a WordTiago Pimentel, Clara MeisterEMNLP 2024 · 2 citations
- Modeling Nonnative Sentence Processing with L2 Language ModelsTatsuya Aoyama, Nathan SchneiderEMNLP 2024 · 1 citation
Builds on4
- FlashAttention: Fast and Memory-Efficient Exact Attention with IO-AwarenessTri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 5,493 citations
- Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and ScalingStella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley et al.ICML 2023 · 1,822 citations
- ZeRO: memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter modelsSamyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunji Ruwase, Yuxiong HeSC 2020 · 852 citations
- Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-LikeTatsuki Kuribayashi, Yohei Oseki, Ana Brassard, Kentaro InuiEMNLP 2022 · 28 citations
Related papers
- The Inverse Scaling Effect of Pre-Trained Language Model Surprisal Is Not Due to Data LeakageByung-Doh Oh, Hongao Zhu, William SchulerACL Findings 2025 · 1 citation
- Reverse-Engineering the ReaderSamuel Kiegeland, Ethan Wilcox, Afra Amini, David Robert Reich et al.EMNLP 2024
- Language models emulate certain cognitive profiles: An investigation of how predictability measures interact with individual differencesPatrick Haller, Lena S. Bolliger, Lena Ann JägerACL Findings 2024 · 7 citations
- How much can language models memorize?John Morris, Chawin Sitawarin, Narine Kokhlikyan, Chuan Guo et al.ICML 2026
- Training Trajectories of Language Models Across ScalesMengzhou Xia, Mikel Artetxe, Chunting Zhou, Xi Victoria Lin et al.ACL 2023 · 12 citations
