Cross-lingual brain-language model alignment is robust but challenges hierarchical and computational accounts
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
Brain-language model alignment is often interpreted as evidence that transformer models implement computations similar to those of the human brain. This assumes that neural predictivity reflects internal computational properties of large language models (LLMs), such as hierarchical contextual processing, predictive coding, or representational compression. An alternative possibility is that brain scores primarily reflect stable lexical-semantic correspondences shared by language models and the brain. Here we tested these interpretations using whole-brain encoding models across Mandarin, English, and French. Across all three languages, transformer representations significantly predicted activity in a distributed network spanning classical language regions, transmodal cortical systems, and subcortical structures. These spatial patterns showed substantial cross-linguistic overlap and remained remarkably stable across layers, providing little evidence that model depth systematically maps onto cortical processing hierarchies. Likewise, contextual transformer embeddings did not consistently outperform static lexical embeddings, despite providing some unique predictive variance. Finally, neither surprisal nor intrinsic dimensionality reproduced the layer-wise profile of brain scores, arguing against prediction and information compression as primary explanations for brain-LLM alignment. Together, these findings suggest that brain-LLM alignment is more robust across languages, transformer depth, and model architectures than previously appreciated, but less informative about shared computational mechanisms. Our results are more consistent with neural predictivity reflecting stable representational structure preserved across model transformations than with a one-to-one correspondence between their underlying computations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Computational Lesions in Multilingual Language Models Separate Shared and Language-specific Brain Alignment
- 2026Linguistic properties and model scale in brain encoding: from small to compressed language models
- 2025Brain-Language Model Alignment: Insights into the Platonic Hypothesis and Intermediate-Layer Advantage
- 2026Abstraction Induces the Brain Alignment of Language and Speech Models
- 2025Neural Correlates of Language Models Are Specific to Human Language
- 2025Language models align with brain regions that represent concepts across modalities
- 2026Brain-LLM Alignment Tracks Training Data, Not Typology
- 2026Interpreting Brain Responses to Language with Sparse Features from Language Models