mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception: Model vs. Human Attention

arXiv 2310.19084 ↗First posted 29 Oct 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent large language models (LLMs) have revealed strong abilities to understand natural language. Since most of them share the same basic structure, i.e. the transformer block, possible contributors to their success in the training process are scaling and instruction tuning. However, how these factors affect the models' language perception is unclear. This work compares the self-attention of several existing LLMs (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna) in different sizes (7B, 13B, 30B, 65B), together with eye saccade, an aspect of human reading attention, to assess the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on language perception. Results show that scaling enhances the human resemblance and improves the effective attention by reducing the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does not. However, instruction tuning significantly enhances the models' sensitivity to instructions. We also find that current LLMs are consistently closer to non-native than native speakers in attention, suggesting a sub-optimal language perception of all models. Our code and data used in the analysis is available on GitHub.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Oct 2023.

Builds on

26 of 50 references.

References · 26

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  4. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
  5. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  6. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,973
  7. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
  8. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  9. 2019Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Prunedcited by 844
  10. 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 759
  11. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  12. 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 556
14 more
  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 510
  2. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  3. 2019Analyzing the Structure of Attention in a Transformer Language Modelcited by 241
  4. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 111
  5. 2019Attention Interpretability Across NLP Taskscited by 71
  6. 2022Measuring the Mixing of Contextual Information in the Transformercited by 63
  7. 2020Human Sentence Processing: Recurrence or Attention?cited by 51
  8. 2021Incorporating Residual and Normalization Layers into Analysis of Masked Language Modelscited by 50
  9. 2020Improving Natural Language Processing Tasks with Human Gaze-Guided Neural Attentioncited by 45
  10. 2023Quantifying Context Mixing in Transformerscited by 43
  11. 2023Explaining How Transformers Use Context to Build Predictionscited by 42
  12. 2021Relative Importance in Sentence Processingcited by 22
  13. 2021Model-based analysis of brain activity reveals the hierarchy of language in 305 subjectscited by 10
  14. 2023Towards Modeling Human Attention from Eye Movements for Neural Source Code Summarizationcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 4.

7 papers.