mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Probabilistic Predictions of People Perusing: Evaluating Metrics of Language Model Performance for Psycholinguistic Modeling

arXiv 2009.03954 ↗First posted 8 Sep 2020cs.CL cs.NEcited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

By positing a relationship between naturalistic reading times and information-theoretic surprisal, surprisal theory (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008) provides a natural interface between language models and psycholinguistic models. This paper re-evaluates a claim due to Goodkind and Bicknell (2018) that a language model's ability to model reading times is a linear function of its perplexity. By extending Goodkind and Bicknell's analysis to modern neural architectures, we show that the proposed relation does not always hold for Long Short-Term Memory networks, Transformers, and pre-trained models. We introduce an alternate measure of language modeling performance called predictability norm correlation based on Cloze probabilities measured from human subjects. Our new metric yields a more robust relationship between language model quality and psycholinguistic modeling performance that allows for comparison between models with different training configurations.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 5; 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024Vision-Language Models for Medical Report Generation and Visual Question Answering: A Reviewcited by 125
  2. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
  3. 2024Filtered Corpus Training (FiCT) Shows that Language Models can Generalize from Indirect Evidencecited by 35
  4. 2022Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Likecited by 34
  5. 2021Multilingual Language Models Predict Human Reading Behaviorcited by 29
  6. 2023Humans and language models diverge when predicting repeating textcited by 13
  7. 2023Words, Subwords, and Morphemes: What Really Matters in the Surprisal-Reading Time Relationship?cited by 13
  8. 2021Can Transformer Language Models Predict Psychometric Properties?cited by 8
  9. 2024Revenge of the Fallen? Recurrent Models Match Transformers at Predicting Human Language Comprehension Metricscited by 6
  10. 2022Predicting Human Psychometric Properties Using Computational Language Modelscited by 5
  11. 2024Large Language Models for Psycholinguistic Plausibility Pretestingcited by 5
  12. 2025Strategic resource allocation in memory encoding: An efficiency principle shaping language processingcited by 2
10 more
  1. 2026N-gram-like Language Models Predict Naturalistic Reading Time Bestcited by 2
  2. 2022Memory in humans and deep language models: Linking hypotheses for model augmentationcited by 1
  3. 2022Composition, Attention, or Both?cited by 1
  4. 2025A Free Probabilistic Framework for Analyzing the Transformer-based Language Modelscited by 1
  5. 2026Clozing the Gap: Exploring Why Language Model Surprisal Outperforms Cloze Surprisalcited by 1
  6. 2026Can LLMs capture stable human-generated sentence entropy measures?cited by 1
  7. 2023Empirical Sufficiency Lower Bounds for Language Modeling with Locally-Bootstrapped Semantic Structurescited by 0
  8. 2025Generative Linguistics, Large Language Models, and the Social Nature of Scientific Successcited by 0
  9. 2026Translationese as a Rational Response to Translation Task Difficultycited by 0
  10. 2026Encoding EEG Signals to Examine Human-Like Next-Word Prediction Behaviour in Language Modelscited by 0