On the Proper Treatment of Tokenization in Psycholinguistics
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
- 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,910
- 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 137
- 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 118
- 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 112
- 2021Revisiting the Uniform Information Density Hypothesiscited by 64
- 2020Human Sentence Processing: Recurrence or Attention?cited by 51
- 2024How to Compute the Probability of a Wordcited by 36
- 2023Analyzing Cognitive Plausibility of Subword Tokenizationcited by 30
- 2024Leading Whitespaces of Language Models' Subword Vocabulary Pose a Confound for Calculating Word Probabilitiescited by 30
- 2021You should evaluate your language model on marginal likelihood over tokenisationscited by 29
- 2024Generalized Measures of Anticipation and Responsivity in Online Language Processingcited by 23
- 2024The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concernscited by 21
5 more
- 2024Where is the signal in tokenization space?cited by 21
- 2023Should you marginalize over possible tokenizations?cited by 17
- 2022Analyzing Wrap-Up Effects through an Information-Theoretic Lenscited by 10
- 2022Construction Repetition Reduces Information Rate in Dialoguecited by 5
- 2024PoTeC: A German Naturalistic Eye-tracking-while-reading Corpuscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 8; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2024From Language Models over Tokens to Language Models over Characterscited by 29
- 2025Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internallycited by 29
- 2025Is Your LLM Overcharging You? Tokenization, Transparency, and Incentivescited by 13
- 2025Adversarial Tokenizationcited by 11
- 2024Tokenisation is NP-Completecited by 10
- 2025IPA-CHILDES & G2P+: Feature-Rich Resources for Cross-Lingual Phonology and Phonemic Language Modelingcited by 6
- 2024The Impact of Token Granularity on the Predictive Power of Language Model Surprisalcited by 5
- 2025If Attention Serves as a Cognitive Model of Human Memory Retrieval, What is the Plausible Memory Representation?cited by 4
- 2025Auditing Pay-Per-Token in Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2026Transducing Language Modelscited by 3
- 2025From Monolingual to Bilingual: Investigating Language Conditioning in Large Language Models for Psycholinguistic Taskscited by 1
- 2025Tokenization Multiplicity Leads to Arbitrary Price Variation in LLM-as-a-servicecited by 0
- 2026Transducing Language Models5 Mar 2026
- 2025Auditing Pay-Per-Token in Large Language Models5 Oct 2025
- 2025From Monolingual to Bilingual: Investigating Language Conditioning in Large Language Models for Psycholinguistic Tasks4 Aug 2025
- 2025Tokenization Multiplicity Leads to Arbitrary Price Variation in LLM-as-a-service6 Jun 2025
- 2025Is Your LLM Overcharging You? Tokenization, Transparency, and Incentives27 May 2025
- 2025IPA-CHILDES & G2P+: Feature-Rich Resources for Cross-Lingual Phonology and Phonemic Language Modeling3 Apr 2025
- 2025Adversarial Tokenization4 Mar 2025
- 2025If Attention Serves as a Cognitive Model of Human Memory Retrieval, What is the Plausible Memory Representation?17 Feb 2025
- 2025Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internally3 Feb 2025
- 2024Tokenisation is NP-Complete19 Dec 2024
- 2024The Impact of Token Granularity on the Predictive Power of Language Model Surprisal16 Dec 2024
- 2024From Language Models over Tokens to Language Models over Characters4 Dec 2024