N-gram-like Language Models Predict Naturalistic Reading Time Best
Organizations: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology · MIT Libraries CREOS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
Recent work has found that contemporary language models such as transformers can become so good at next-word prediction that the probabilities they calculate become worse for predicting naturalistic reading time. In this paper, we propose that this can be explained by reading time being shaped by simple n-gram statistics rather than the more complex statistics learned by state-of-the-art transformer language models. We demonstrate that the neural language models whose predictions are most correlated with n-gram probability are also those that calculate probabilities that are the most correlated with eye-tracking-based metrics of reading time on naturalistic text.
Figures & tables
| GECO | Provo | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | N-gram | FFD | FPD | SGPD | GPD | TD | FFD | FPD | GPD | TD | |
| Gemstone | Unigram Surprisal | 0.964 | 0.981 | 0.984 | 0.990 | 0.980 | 0.884 | 0.980 | 0.955 | 0.949 | |
| Gemstone | Bigram Surprisal | 0.942 | 0.986 | 0.984 | 0.970 | 0.966 | 0.896 | 0.986 | 0.972 | 0.966 | |
| Gemstone | Trigram Surprisal | 0.976 | 0.970 | 0.974 | 0.982 | 0.982 | 0.886 | 0.959 | 0.969 | 0.962 | |
| Open GPT-2 | Unigram Surprisal | 0.564 | 0.643 | 0.662 | 0.771 | 0.646 | 0.511 | 0.772 | 0.723 | 0.677 | |
| Open GPT-2 | Bigram Surprisal | 0.918 | 0.974 | 0.976 | 0.938 | 0.964 | 0.955 | 0.989 | 0.973 | 0.988 | |
Language Modeling
Language modeling develops systems that learn patterns in text and other sequences to understand, predict, and generate language.
See all 519 papers