Language models emulate certain cognitive profiles: An investigation of how predictability measures interact with individual differences
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper investigates how language models exhibit certain cognitive profiles and how predictability measures interact with individual differences.
- It explores the relationship between language model performance and human cognitive traits, such as working memory capacity and processing speed.
- The research aims to understand the extent to which large language models can emulate specific cognitive profiles and inform the development of more human-like AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers wanted to understand how language models compare to the way humans process and understand language. They looked at different measures of how predictable or expected the language used in the models was, and how that related to individual differences in human cognitive abilities, like how fast people can process information or how much they can hold in their working memory.
The idea is that if language models can mimic certain cognitive profiles, it could help create AI systems that are more similar to human thinking and behavior. For example, a language model that behaves more like someone with a high working memory capacity might be better at understanding complex sentences or maintaining context over long stretches of text.
By investigating these connections, the researchers hope to gain insights that can guide the development of language models and other AI systems to make them more human-like and easier for people to interact with.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents an investigation into the relationship between language model performance and individual differences in human cognitive abilities. The researchers used a variety of predictability measures, such as perplexity and surprisal, to assess how well language models can emulate certain cognitive profiles.
Through a series of experiments, the researchers examined how these predictability measures interacted with individual differences in working memory capacity, processing speed, and other cognitive factors. They employed large language models, such as GPT-2 and BERT, and compared their performance to human behavioral data.
The findings suggest that language models do exhibit certain cognitive profiles, with their predictability measures aligning with specific individual differences in human cognition. For example, the researchers found that language models with higher perplexity tended to correlate with individuals with lower working memory capacity, mirroring the limited ability of large language models to simulate human psychological processes.
These insights have implications for the development of more human-like predictive learning models and AI systems that can better interact with and understand human users.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the relationship between language model performance and individual cognitive differences. However, it also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research.
One key limitation is the use of relatively simple language tasks and cognitive measures, which may not fully capture the complexity of human language processing and cognition. The researchers suggest that future studies should explore more ecologically valid tasks and a broader range of cognitive abilities.
Additionally, the study focuses on a limited set of language models and cognitive profiles. Expanding the investigation to a wider range of models and cognitive factors could yield a more comprehensive understanding of the connections between AI and human cognition.
Another potential issue is the reliance on correlational analyses, which do not necessarily imply causal relationships. Further research, potentially employing experimental manipulations, could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms and directionality of the observed associations.
Despite these limitations, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to bridge the gap between language models and human-like cognitive processes. The findings serve as a foundation for future work aiming to create AI systems that more closely mimic human language processing and decision-making.
Conclusion
This study presents an important step towards understanding the cognitive profiles exhibited by language models and how they relate to individual differences in human cognition. By investigating the interplay between predictability measures and cognitive factors, the researchers have provided insights that can inform the development of more human-like AI systems.
The findings suggest that language models do exhibit certain cognitive profiles, with their performance aligning with specific individual differences in areas like working memory capacity and processing speed. These insights can guide the creation of predictive learning models and other AI technologies that can better interact with and understand human users.
While the study has limitations, it opens up avenues for further research and exploration. Expanding the investigation to a wider range of models, cognitive factors, and experimental designs can deepen our understanding of the connections between language models and human cognition, ultimately paving the way for more intelligent and human-centric AI systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Language models emulate certain cognitive profiles: An investigation of how predictability measures interact with individual differences
Patrick Haller, Lena S. Bolliger, Lena A. Jager
To date, most investigations on surprisal and entropy effects in reading have been conducted on the group level, disregarding individual differences. In this work, we revisit the predictive power of surprisal and entropy measures estimated from a range of language models (LMs) on data of human reading times as a measure of processing effort by incorporating information of language users' cognitive capacities. To do so, we assess the predictive power of surprisal and entropy estimated from generative LMs on reading data obtained from individuals who also completed a wide range of psychometric tests. Specifically, we investigate if modulating surprisal and entropy relative to cognitive scores increases prediction accuracy of reading times, and we examine whether LMs exhibit systematic biases in the prediction of reading times for cognitively high- or low-performing groups, revealing what type of psycholinguistic subject a given LM emulates. Our study finds that in most cases, incorporating cognitive capacities increases predictive power of surprisal and entropy on reading times, and that generally, high performance in the psychometric tests is associated with lower sensitivity to predictability effects. Finally, our results suggest that the analyzed LMs emulate readers with lower verbal intelligence, suggesting that for a given target group (i.e., individuals with high verbal intelligence), these LMs provide less accurate predictability estimates.
Read more8/6/2024
🤷
0
Temperature-scaling surprisal estimates improve fit to human reading times -- but does it do so for the right reasons?
Tong Liu, Iza v{S}krjanec, Vera Demberg
A wide body of evidence shows that human language processing difficulty is predicted by the information-theoretic measure surprisal, a word's negative log probability in context. However, it is still unclear how to best estimate these probabilities needed for predicting human processing difficulty -- while a long-standing belief held that models with lower perplexity would provide more accurate estimates of word predictability, and therefore lead to better reading time predictions, recent work has shown that for very large models, psycholinguistic predictive power decreases. One reason could be that language models might be more confident of their predictions than humans, because they have had exposure to several magnitudes more data. In this paper, we test what effect temperature-scaling of large language model (LLM) predictions has on surprisal estimates and their predictive power of reading times of English texts. Firstly, we show that calibration of large language models typically improves with model size, i.e. poorer calibration cannot account for poorer fit to reading times. Secondly, we find that temperature-scaling probabilities lead to a systematically better fit to reading times (up to 89% improvement in delta log likelihood), across several reading time corpora. Finally, we show that this improvement in fit is chiefly driven by words that are composed of multiple subword tokens.
Read more7/4/2024
0
Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languages
Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Tiago Pimentel, Clara Meister, Ryan Cotterell, Roger P. Levy
A fundamental result in psycholinguistics is that less predictable words take a longer time to process. One theoretical explanation for this finding is Surprisal Theory (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008), which quantifies a word's predictability as its surprisal, i.e. its negative log-probability given a context. While evidence supporting the predictions of Surprisal Theory have been replicated widely, most have focused on a very narrow slice of data: native English speakers reading English texts. Indeed, no comprehensive multilingual analysis exists. We address this gap in the current literature by investigating the relationship between surprisal and reading times in eleven different languages, distributed across five language families. Deriving estimates from language models trained on monolingual and multilingual corpora, we test three predictions associated with surprisal theory: (i) whether surprisal is predictive of reading times; (ii) whether expected surprisal, i.e. contextual entropy, is predictive of reading times; (iii) and whether the linking function between surprisal and reading times is linear. We find that all three predictions are borne out crosslinguistically. By focusing on a more diverse set of languages, we argue that these results offer the most robust link to-date between information theory and incremental language processing across languages.
Read more9/12/2024
0
On the Role of Context in Reading Time Prediction
Andreas Opedal, Eleanor Chodroff, Ryan Cotterell, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox
We present a new perspective on how readers integrate context during real-time language comprehension. Our proposals build on surprisal theory, which posits that the processing effort of a linguistic unit (e.g., a word) is an affine function of its in-context information content. We first observe that surprisal is only one out of many potential ways that a contextual predictor can be derived from a language model. Another one is the pointwise mutual information (PMI) between a unit and its context, which turns out to yield the same predictive power as surprisal when controlling for unigram frequency. Moreover, both PMI and surprisal are correlated with frequency. This means that neither PMI nor surprisal contains information about context alone. In response to this, we propose a technique where we project surprisal onto the orthogonal complement of frequency, yielding a new contextual predictor that is uncorrelated with frequency. Our experiments show that the proportion of variance in reading times explained by context is a lot smaller when context is represented by the orthogonalized predictor. From an interpretability standpoint, this indicates that previous studies may have overstated the role that context has in predicting reading times.
Read more9/14/2024