mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

On the Proper Treatment of Tokenization in Psycholinguistics

arXiv 2410.02691 ↗First posted 3 Oct 2024cs.CLcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Language models are widely used in computational psycholinguistics to test theories that relate the negative log probability (the surprisal) of a region of interest (a substring of characters) under a language model to its cognitive cost experienced by readers, as operationalized, for example, by gaze duration on the region. However, the application of modern language models to psycholinguistic studies is complicated by the practice of using tokenization as an intermediate step in training a model. Doing so results in a language model over token strings rather than one over character strings. Vexingly, regions of interest are generally misaligned with these token strings. The paper argues that token-level language models should be (approximately) marginalized into character-level language models before they are used in psycholinguistic studies to compute the surprisal of a region of interest; then, the marginalized character-level language model can be used to compute the surprisal of an arbitrary character substring, which we term a focal area, that the experimenter may wish to use as a predictor. Our proposal of marginalizing a token-level model into a character-level one solves this misalignment issue independently of the tokenization scheme. Empirically, we discover various focal areas whose surprisal is a better psychometric predictor than the surprisal of the region of interest itself.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2024.

Builds on

17 of 86 references.

References · 17

  1. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,910
  2. 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
  3. 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 118
  4. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 112
  5. 2021Revisiting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesiscited by 64
  6. 2020Human Sentence Processing: Recurrence or Attention?cited by 51
  7. 2024How to Compute the Probability of a Wordcited by 36
  8. 2023Analyzing Cognitive Plausibility of Subword Tokenizationcited by 30
  9. 2024Leading Whitespaces of Language Models' Subword Vocabulary Pose a Confound for Calculating Word Probabilitiescited by 30
  10. 2021You should evaluate your language model on marginal likelihood over tokenisationscited by 29
  11. 2024Generalized Measures of Anticipation and Responsivity in Online Language Processingcited by 23
  12. 2024The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concernscited by 21
5 more
  1. 2024Where is the signal in tokenization space?cited by 21
  2. 2023Should you marginalize over possible tokenizations?cited by 17
  3. 2022Analyzing Wrap-Up Effects through an Information-Theoretic Lenscited by 10
  4. 2022Construction Repetition Reduces Information Rate in Dialoguecited by 5
  5. 2024PoTeC: A German Naturalistic Eye-tracking-while-reading Corpuscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 8; 2026: 1.

12 papers.