mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Human-like fleeting memory improves language learning but impairs reading time prediction in transformer language models

arXiv 2508.05803 ↗First posted 7 Aug 2025cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Human memory is fleeting. As words are processed, the exact wordforms that make up incoming sentences are rapidly lost. Cognitive scientists have long believed that this limitation of memory may, paradoxically, help in learning language - an idea supported by classic connectionist modelling work. The rise of Transformers appears to challenge this idea, as these models can learn language effectively, despite lacking memory limitations or other architectural recency biases. Here, we investigate the hypothesized benefit of fleeting memory for language learning in tightly controlled experiments on transformer language models. Training transformers with and without fleeting memory on a developmentally realistic training set, we find that fleeting memory consistently improves language learning (as quantified by both overall language modelling performance and targeted syntactic evaluation) but, unexpectedly, impairs surprisal-based prediction of human reading times. Interestingly, follow up analyses revealed that this discrepancy - better language modeling, yet worse reading time prediction - could not be accounted for by prior explanations of why better language models sometimes fit human reading time worse. Together, these results support a benefit of memory limitations on neural network language learning - but not on predicting behavior.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Aug 2025.

Builds on

19 of 48 references.

References · 19

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  2. 2021Train Short, Test Long: Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolationcited by 1,103
  3. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
  4. 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 165
  5. 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 119
  6. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
  7. 2020Syntactic Structure from Deep Learningcited by 99
  8. 2025Findings of the BabyLM Challenge: Sample-Efficient Pretraining on Developmentally Plausible Corporacited by 88
  9. 2025How Linguistics Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Language Modelscited by 51
  10. 2023Transformer-Based Language Model Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokenscited by 41
  11. 2017The Natural Stories Corpuscited by 40
  12. 2024Frequency Explains the Inverse Correlation of Large Language Models' Size, Training Data Amount, and Surprisal's Fit to Reading Timescited by 39
7 more
  1. 2016Criticality in Formal Languages and Statistical Physicscited by 35
  2. 2023A Language Model with Limited Memory Capacity Captures Interference in Human Sentence Processingcited by 22
  3. 2024Linear Recency Bias During Training Improves Transformers' Fit to Reading Timescited by 14
  4. 2023Humans and language models diverge when predicting repeating textcited by 13
  5. 2025Developmentally-plausible Working Memory Shapes a Critical Period for Language Acquisitioncited by 10
  6. 2025Language Models Grow Less Humanlike beyond Phase Transitioncited by 10
  7. 2022Characterizing Verbatim Short-Term Memory in Neural Language Modelscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.