Using LMs to Model the Effects of Context and Coreference during Sentence Comprehension

We reproduce and stress-test the work of Yu et al. (2023), who characterize how language models (LMs) arbitrate between memorized knowledge and contradictory in-context statements. We replicate their world-capitals experiments on 31 models spanning Pythia, GPT-2, Qwen3, and Ministral families, including base and post-trained variants, and extend evaluations to five additional knowledge relation types from the ParaConflict dataset. We empirically confirm most of their original findings: larger models and higher-frequency entities tend to favor memorized answers, with substantial family-level variance. However, several conclusions do not generalize cleanly: entity-frequency effects disappear on Qwen3-14B and 32B; post-training shifts the memory-context trade-off inconsistently across families; question phrasing alone can change a model's reliance on memorized knowledge by up to 80 percentage points; and semantically unrelated prose can mimic coherent supporting context. Our results clarify where Yu et al.'s claims hold and to what extent they generalize to other prompts.

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.