cs.CLDate pending

Cross-lingual brain-language model alignment is robust but challenges hierarchical and computational accounts

Authors: Ni Yang, Rui He, Philipp Homan, Iris Sommer, Davide Staub, Wolfram Hinzen

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 21, 2026cs.CL

Brain-LLM Alignment Tracks Training Data, Not Typology

Brain-LLM alignment is well established in English, yet the brain's language network is neuroanatomically universal across languages. Does alignment also generalize cross-linguistically, and what governs the variation? We test this using fMRI data from 112 participants across English, Chinese, and French (the Le Petit Prince corpus) and seven LLMs spanning English-dominant, Chinese-dominant, and multilingual architectures. Our central finding is that training-language dominance, not an inherent property of English, drives the alignment pattern: a Chinese-dominant model (Baichuan2-7B), architecture-matched to LLaMA-2-7B, reverses the gradient entirely, aligning best with Chinese brains and worst with English. Beyond training dominance, formal typological distance independently covaries with alignment degradation, syntax-associated brain regions (IFG) show 2.3×2.3\times steeper typological gradients than lexico-semantic regions (PTL), and tokenization fertility accounts for ∼\sim60% of a cross-linguistic shift in optimal encoding layer. These results reveal that the apparent "English advantage" in brain-LLM alignment is an artifact of training data composition, while the remaining variation reflects genuine typological structure concentrated in syntactic processing.
Dongxin Guo, Jikun Wu, Siu Ming Yiu
Large Language Model AlignmentCross-Lingual ConsistencyProtein Language ModelBrainBrain Activity
AskPDF
Sep 2, 2026cs.CL

No country for old linguists: LLM-brain alignment underdetermines neural computation

Nastase et al. (2026) argue that large language models (LLMs) may illuminate language processing because both rely on distributed, context-sensitive representations shaped by statistical learning. Their rejection of simple cortical "boxology" is persuasive, and they articulate a strong case for the value of LLM-brain alignment research. The key question is what kind of inference LLM-brain alignment licenses. My claim here will be narrow: representational alignment can in principle constrain mechanistic hypotheses, but it does not by itself identify a mechanism. Nastase et al. acknowledge that an encoding model can capture features represented in neural activity without establishing a shared architecture or algorithm. Yet the authors sometime move from alignment to "shared computational principles" and ultimately to LLMs as mechanistic models of natural language. Indeed, their methodological caveat that alignment does not establish a shared architecture or algorithm sits uneasily with their conclusion that LLMs might instantiate the same computational principles as biological brains and provide a "fully mechanistic model" of language. I discuss what I consider to be problems of logical, causal, and computational underdetermination in Nastase et al.'s (2026) proposal.
Elliot Murphy
Large Language Model AlignmentLinguisticsNatural LanguageEncoding ModelsCountries
AskPDF
Feb 13, 2026cs.CL

Left-right asymmetry in predicting brain activity from LLMs' representations emerges with their formal linguistic competence

When humans and large language models (LLMs) process the same text, activations in the LLMs correlate with brain activity measured, e.g., with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Moreover, it has been shown that, as the training of an LLM progresses, the performance in predicting brain activity from its internal activations improves more in the left hemisphere than in the right one. The aim of the present work is to understand which kind of competence acquired by the LLMs underlies the emergence of this left-right asymmetry. Using the OLMo-2 7B language model at various training checkpoints and fMRI data from English participants, we compare the evolution of the left-right asymmetry in the correlation between brain activity and model predictions alongside performance on several benchmarks. We observe that the asymmetry co-emerges with the formal linguistic abilities of the LLM. These abilities are demonstrated in two ways: by the model's capacity to assign a higher probability to an acceptable sentence than to a grammatically unacceptable one within a minimal contrasting pair, and by its ability to produce well-formed text. By contrast, the left-right asymmetry does not align with the performance on arithmetic or Dyck language tasks; nor with text-based tasks involving world knowledge and reasoning. We generalize these results to another family of LLMs (Pythia) and two other languages, French and Chinese. Our observations indicate that the left-right asymmetry in brain predictivity matches the progress in formal linguistic competence.
Laurent Bonnasse-Gahot, Christophe Pallier
Large Language Models FailLinguisticsBrain ActivityAsymmetryHuman Visual Cortex
AskPDF