Lune

ACL Findings2024

Language models emulate certain cognitive profiles: An investigation of how predictability measures interact with individual differences

Patrick Haller, Lena S. Bolliger, Lena Ann Jäger

Abstract

To date, most investigations on surprisal and entropy effects in reading have been conducted on the group level, disregarding individual differences. In this work, we revisit the predictive power of surprisal and entropy measures estimated from a range of language models (LMs) on data of human reading times as a measure of processing effort by incorporating information of language users' cognitive capacities. To do so, we assess the predictive power of surprisal and entropy estimated from generative LMs on reading data obtained from individuals who also completed a wide range of psychometric tests. Specifically, we investigate if modulating surprisal and entropy relative to cognitive scores increases prediction accuracy of reading times, and we examine whether LMs exhibit systematic biases in the prediction of reading times for cognitively high-or low-performing groups, revealing what type of psycholinguistic subject a given LM emulates. Our study finds that in most cases, incorporating cognitive capacities increases predictive power of surprisal and entropy on reading times, and that generally, high performance in the psychometric tests is associated with lower sensitivity to predictability effects. Finally, our results suggest that the analyzed LMs emulate readers with lower verbal intelligence, suggesting that for a given target group (i.e., individuals with high verbal intelligence), these LMs provide less accurate predictability estimates. 1

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.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Builds on6

  1. Transformer-Based Language Model Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training TokensByung-Doh Oh, William SchulerEMNLP Findings 2023 · 21 citations
  2. Revisiting the Uniform Information Density HypothesisClara Meister, Tiago Pimentel, Patrick Haller, Lena A. Jäger et al.EMNLP 2021 · 4 citations
  3. A surprisal-duration trade-off across and within the world's languagesTiago Pimentel, Clara Meister, Elizabeth Salesky, Simone Teufel et al.EMNLP 2021 · 2 citations
  4. Fast WordPiece TokenizationXinying Song, Alex Salcianu, Yang Song, Dave Dopson et al.EMNLP 2021
  5. CDRNN: Discovering Complex Dynamics in Human Language ProcessingCory ShainACL 2021

Related papers

  1. 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
  2. Reverse-Engineering the ReaderSamuel Kiegeland, Ethan Wilcox, Afra Amini, David Robert Reich et al.EMNLP 2024
  3. Probing for Reading TimesEleftheria Tsipidi, Samuel Kiegeland, Francesco Ignazio Re, Tianyang Xu et al.ACL 2026
  4. Entropy- and Distance-Based Predictors From GPT-2 Attention Patterns Predict Reading Times Over and Above GPT-2 SurprisalByung-Doh Oh, William SchulerEMNLP 2022 · 13 citations
  5. Dual Alignment Between Language Model Layers and Human Sentence ProcessingTatsuki Kuribayashi, Alex Warstadt, Yohei Oseki, Ethan Gotlieb WilcoxACL 2026 · 1 citation
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines