mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Reader Proficiency Shapes Layer-wise Surprisal Profiles

arXiv 2609.37688 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reading behaviour varies not only with linguistic input, but also with reader proficiency. In this study, we investigate whether the layer-wise relationship between surprisal from large language models (LLMs) and human gaze behaviour differs across readers with different levels of proficiency and across gaze measures. Using eye-tracking data from the MECO L2 corpus, we compare readers with high and low vocabulary proficiency on first-pass gaze duration (FPGD) and total gaze duration (TGD). We quantify the distribution of the predictive power of surprisal across model layers using Predictive Depth. Across 12 tested LLMs, we find that readers with lower vocabulary proficiency tend to show deeper Predictive Depth for FPGD, while this difference is smaller for TGD. Also, TGD itself shows deeper Predictive Depth than FPGD in both proficiency groups. These patterns suggest that where predictive power is concentrated across LLM layers may be related to the timing and breadth of the reading processes captured by different gaze measures, and that this relationship can vary with reader proficiency. Our leave-one-out analysis further shows that the advantage of informative internal layers extends to unseen texts, although the practical improvements in prediction are limited. Overall, our results show that layer-wise LLM surprisal provides a useful perspective on variation in reading behaviour across both reader groups and gaze measures.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

Builds on

7 of 29 references.

References · 7

  1. 2020Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semanticscited by 156
  2. 2018Dissecting Contextual Word Embeddings: Architecture and Representationcited by 146
  3. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
  4. 2022Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Likecited by 34
  5. 2025Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internallycited by 29
  6. 2023Do Text Simplification Systems Preserve Meaning? A Human Evaluation via Reading Comprehensioncited by 16
  7. 2026Dual Alignment Between Language Model Layers and Human Sentence Processingcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.