mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behavior

arXiv 2006.01912 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2020cs.CLcited by 115

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Human reading behavior is tuned to the statistics of natural language: the time it takes human subjects to read a word can be predicted from estimates of the word's probability in context. However, it remains an open question what computational architecture best characterizes the expectations deployed in real time by humans that determine the behavioral signatures of reading. Here we test over two dozen models, independently manipulating computational architecture and training dataset size, on how well their next-word expectations predict human reading time behavior on naturalistic text corpora. We find that across model architectures and training dataset sizes the relationship between word log-probability and reading time is (near-)linear. We next evaluate how features of these models determine their psychometric predictive power, or ability to predict human reading behavior. In general, the better a model's next-word expectations, the better its psychometric predictive power. However, we find nontrivial differences across model architectures. For any given perplexity, deep Transformer models and n-gram models generally show superior psychometric predictive power over LSTM or structurally supervised neural models, especially for eye movement data. Finally, we compare models' psychometric predictive power to the depth of their syntactic knowledge, as measured by a battery of syntactic generalization tests developed using methods from controlled psycholinguistic experiments. Once perplexity is controlled for, we find no significant relationship between syntactic knowledge and predictive power. These results suggest that different approaches may be required to best model human real-time language comprehension behavior in naturalistic reading versus behavior for controlled linguistic materials designed for targeted probing of syntactic knowledge.

Key facts. Cited by 115 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 10; 2022: 16; 2023: 20; 2024: 25; 2025: 18; 2026: 26.

115 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2022Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning taskscited by 171
  2. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 111
  3. 2023Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languagescited by 75
  4. 2023Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarkscited by 73
  5. 2021Revisiting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesiscited by 63
  6. 2023Generative Pre-trained Transformer: A Comprehensive Review on Enabling Technologies, Potential Applications, Emerging Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 55
  7. 2021Lower Perplexity is Not Always Human-Likecited by 52
  8. 2021Refining Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 41
  9. 2022Can language models handle recursively nested grammatical structures? A case study on comparing models and humanscited by 41
  10. 2023Transformer-Based Language Model Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokenscited by 39
  11. 2023Instruction-tuning Aligns LLMs to the Human Braincited by 39
  12. 2024How to Compute the Probability of a Wordcited by 36
38 more
  1. 2024Filtered Corpus Training (FiCT) Shows that Language Models can Generalize from Indirect Evidencecited by 35
  2. 2021A Targeted Assessment of Incremental Processing in Neural LanguageModels and Humanscited by 32
  3. 2022Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Likecited by 32
  4. 2021Multilingual Language Models Predict Human Reading Behaviorcited by 29
  5. 2025Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internallycited by 28
  6. 2021Accounting for Agreement Phenomena in Sentence Comprehension with Transformer Language Models: Effects of Similarity-based Interference on Surprisal and Attentioncited by 26
  7. 2024Large Language Models are Biased Because They Are Large Language Modelscited by 26
  8. 2022Probing for Incremental Parse States in Autoregressive Language Modelscited by 24
  9. 2024Language Models as Models of Languagecited by 24
  10. 2021A surprisal--duration trade-off across and within the world's languagescited by 22
  11. 2023Information Value: Measuring Utterance Predictability as Distance from Plausible Alternativescited by 22
  12. 2022On the Effect of Anticipation on Reading Timescited by 18
  13. 2024On the Role of Context in Reading Time Predictioncited by 17
  14. 2022On the probability-quality paradox in language generationcited by 16
  15. 2023Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimescited by 16
  16. 2021Different kinds of cognitive plausibility: why are transformers better than RNNs at predicting N400 amplitude?cited by 14
  17. 2022Entropy- and Distance-Based Predictors From GPT-2 Attention Patterns Predict Reading Times Over and Above GPT-2 Surprisalcited by 14
  18. 2024Linear Recency Bias During Training Improves Transformers' Fit to Reading Timescited by 14
  19. 2023Words, Subwords, and Morphemes: What Really Matters in the Surprisal-Reading Time Relationship?cited by 13
  20. 2024Predictions from language models for multiple-choice tasks are not robust under variation of scoring methodscited by 13
  21. 2023Humans and language models diverge when predicting repeating textcited by 12
  22. 2023When Language Models Fall in Love: Animacy Processing in Transformer Language Modelscited by 12
  23. 2023Quantifying the redundancy between prosody and textcited by 12
  24. 2024On the Proper Treatment of Tokenization in Psycholinguisticscited by 12
  25. 2023Lewis's Signaling Game as beta-VAE For Natural Word Lengths and Segmentscited by 11
  26. 2023Large GPT-like Models are Bad Babies: A Closer Look at the Relationship between Linguistic Competence and Psycholinguistic Measurescited by 11
  27. 2024Emergent Word Order Universals from Cognitively-Motivated Language Modelscited by 11
  28. 2025To model human linguistic prediction, make LLMs less superhumancited by 11
  29. 2022Analyzing Wrap-Up Effects through an Information-Theoretic Lenscited by 10
  30. 2024Incremental Comprehension of Garden-Path Sentences by Large Language Models: Semantic Interpretation, Syntactic Re-Analysis, and Attentioncited by 10
  31. 2025Language Models Grow Less Humanlike beyond Phase Transitioncited by 10
  32. 2022Language Models Explain Word Reading Times Better Than Empirical Predictabilitycited by 9
  33. 2023Expectations over Unspoken Alternatives Predict Pragmatic Inferencescited by 9
  34. 2024Towards a Similarity-adjusted Surprisal Theorycited by 9
  35. 2021Can Transformer Language Models Predict Psychometric Properties?cited by 8
  36. 2024A systematic framework for generating novel experimental hypotheses from language modelscited by 8
  37. 2023Temperature-scaling surprisal estimates improve fit to human reading times -- but does it do so for the "right reasons"?cited by 7
  38. 2024From "um" to "yeah": Producing, predicting, and regulating information flow in human conversationcited by 7

50 most cited of 115 All 115 (JSON)