Across the Levels of Analysis: Explaining Predictive Processing in Humans Requires More Than Machine-Estimated Probabilities

A recent study (Kuribayashi et al., 2025) has shown that human sentence processing behavior, typically measured on syntactically unchallenging constructions, can be effectively modeled using surprisal from early layers of large language models (LLMs). This raises the question of whether such advantages of internal layers extend to more syntactically challenging constructions, where surprisal has been reported to underestimate human cognitive effort. In this paper, we begin by exploring internal layers that better estimate human cognitive effort observed in syntactic ambiguity processing in English. Our experiments show that, in contrast to naturalistic reading, later layers better estimate such a cognitive effort, but still underestimate the human data. This dual alignment sheds light on different modes of sentence processing in humans and LMs: naturalistic reading employs a somewhat weak prediction akin to earlier layers of LMs, while syntactically challenging processing requires more fully-contextualized representations, better modeled by later layers of LMs. Motivated by these findings, we also explore several probability-update measures using shallow and deep layers of LMs, showing a complementary advantage to single-layer's surprisal in reading time modeling.

Language models (LMs) are trained to excel at predicting the next word in the sequence given prior context, and humans also share this predictability in reading comprehension. Neuroscience research reveals that next-word predictability influences brain response, as recorded at millisecond resolution using electroencephalography (EEG). While our evidence indicates that advanced LMs achieve accuracies closely aligned with human performance at the next-word prediction task, this raises the question: Does higher prediction accuracy necessarily mean that these models adequately capture the cognitive signals associated with human reading comprehension? Here, we generate regressors for both humans and LMs based on two information measures, including top-1 prediction and surprisal, to predict event-related potential (ERP) elicited from EEG recordings which reflect different stages of cognitive processing during reading. We argue that modelling ERP patterns offers fine-grained analysis of the cognitive plausibility of various LMs during reading. Our results indicate that only surprisal potentially correlates with language-processing ERPs, especially for open-class words with high semantic content. Moreover, our findings challenge the assumption that scaling LMs with increased parameters and computational budgets will consistently lead to improved convergence with human-like linguistic processing.

Language models (LMs) are often used as a tool to model human language processing. Recent studies suggest that severely restricting LMs' context window improves their fit to human psycholinguistic data by simulating human working memory constraints. However, it is possible that this strict memory-decay approach overlooks humans' reliance on long-range structural representations, such as discourse structre. In this work, we systematically vary the context window size of GPT-2 across four large-scale naturalistic English reading-time datasets and observe a U-shaped relationship: Although restricted contexts (< 20 tokens) successfully capture local memory limitations, expanded contexts (500--1,000 tokens) ultimately yield the highest overall psycholinguistic fit. To investigate the mechanism driving this benefit, we conduct a counterfactual inference-time experiment that disrupts cross-sentential entity chains by pronominalizing repeated discourse entities. Obscuring these structural linkages significantly degrades the predictive power of larger context windows by 20% to 40%. Our experiments demonstrate that tracking long-range coreference relations is one important factor for the alignment between LM surprisal and human reading behavior, and approximate the extent to which human comprehenders use global discourse relations during language processing.