Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models

Next-word probabilities from language models have been shown to successfully simulate human reading behavior. Building on this, we show that, interestingly, instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) yield worse psychometric predictive power (PPP) for human reading behavior than base LLMs with equivalent perplexities. In other words, instruction tuning, which helps LLMs provide human-preferred responses, does not always make them human-like from the computational psycholinguistics perspective. In addition, we explore prompting methodologies in simulating human reading behavior with LLMs, showing that prompts reflecting a particular linguistic hypothesis lead LLMs to exhibit better PPP but are still worse than base LLMs. These highlight that recent instruction tuning and prompting do not offer better estimates than direct probability measurements from base LLMs in cognitive modeling.Comment: 8 page

Can Language Models Be Tricked by Language Illusions? Easier with Syntax, Harder with Semantics

Language models (LMs) have been argued to overlap substantially with human beings in grammaticality judgment tasks. But when humans systematically make errors in language processing, should we expect LMs to behave like cognitive models of language and mimic human behavior? We answer this question by investigating LMs' more subtle judgments associated with "language illusions" -- sentences that are vague in meaning, implausible, or ungrammatical but receive unexpectedly high acceptability judgments by humans. We looked at three illusions: the comparative illusion (e.g. "More people have been to Russia than I have"), the depth-charge illusion (e.g. "No head injury is too trivial to be ignored"), and the negative polarity item (NPI) illusion (e.g. "The hunter who no villager believed to be trustworthy will ever shoot a bear"). We found that probabilities represented by LMs were more likely to align with human judgments of being "tricked" by the NPI illusion which examines a structural dependency, compared to the comparative and the depth-charge illusions which require sophisticated semantic understanding. No single LM or metric yielded results that are entirely consistent with human behavior. Ultimately, we show that LMs are limited both in their construal as cognitive models of human language processing and in their capacity to recognize nuanced but critical information in complicated language materials.Comment: Accepted by The SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning 202

A Cross-Linguistic Pressure for Uniform Information Density in Word Order

While natural languages differ widely in both canonical word order and word order flexibility, their word orders still follow shared cross-linguistic statistical patterns, often attributed to functional pressures. In the effort to identify these pressures, prior work has compared real and counterfactual word orders. Yet one functional pressure has been overlooked in such investigations: the uniform information density (UID) hypothesis, which holds that information should be spread evenly throughout an utterance. Here, we ask whether a pressure for UID may have influenced word order patterns cross-linguistically. To this end, we use computational models to test whether real orders lead to greater information uniformity than counterfactual orders. In our empirical study of 10 typologically diverse languages, we find that: (i) among SVO languages, real word orders consistently have greater uniformity than reverse word orders, and (ii) only linguistically implausible counterfactual orders consistently exceed the uniformity of real orders. These findings are compatible with a pressure for information uniformity in the development and usage of natural languages

Neural models of language use:Studies of language comprehension and production in context

Artificial neural network models of language are mostly known and appreciated today for providing a backbone for formidable AI technologies. This thesis takes a different perspective. Through a series of studies on language comprehension and production, it investigates whether artificial neural networks—beyond being useful in countless AI applications—can serve as accurate computational simulations of human language use, and thus as a new core methodology for the language sciences

Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Like

Language models (LMs) have been used in cognitive modeling as well as engineering studies -- they compute information-theoretic complexity metrics that simulate humans' cognitive load during reading. This study highlights a limitation of modern neural LMs as the model of choice for this purpose: there is a discrepancy between their context access capacities and that of humans. Our results showed that constraining the LMs' context access improved their simulation of human reading behavior. We also showed that LM-human gaps in context access were associated with specific syntactic constructions; incorporating syntactic biases into LMs' context access might enhance their cognitive plausibility.Comment: Accepted by EMNLP2022 (main long