Temperature-scaling surprisal estimates improve fit to human reading times -- but does it do so for the right reasons?

Overview

• This paper investigates the relationship between the information-theoretic measure of surprisal, which predicts human language processing difficulty, and the predictions of large language models (LLMs).
• The researchers explore how temperature-scaling the probabilities predicted by LLMs can improve the models' ability to estimate word surprisal and better predict human reading times.
• The paper provides insights into how well-calibrated LLMs are in comparison to human language processing, and how adjusting the models' confidence levels can lead to better psycholinguistic predictive power.

Plain English Explanation

When we read or listen to language, some words are more surprising or difficult to process than others. This previous research has shown that a measure called "surprisal" - the negative log probability of a word in its context - can predict how hard a word is for humans to process.

However, it's not clear how best to estimate these probabilities that determine surprisal. Past work has suggested that language models with lower "perplexity" (a measure of how well they predict language) would make better surprisal estimates. But recent research has found that for very large language models, their ability to predict human reading times actually decreases.

One reason for this could be that large language models are more confident in their predictions than humans are, because they've seen much more data. This paper explores whether adjusting the confidence of these models, using a technique called "temperature scaling," can improve their ability to estimate surprisal and predict reading times.

Technical Explanation

The researchers first show that the calibration (how well-aligned the model's confidence is with its accuracy) of large language models generally improves as the models get larger. This rules out poor calibration as the reason for the decreased psycholinguistic predictive power of very large models.

Next, the researchers find that temperature-scaling the probabilities predicted by large language models leads to a significant improvement in the models' ability to predict human reading times, across multiple reading time datasets. This improvement is up to 89% in terms of the change in log likelihood.

The researchers attribute this improvement to the models' better handling of words composed of multiple subword tokens. By adjusting the models' confidence, temperature scaling allows the models to better capture the surprisal of these more complex words, which are important for predicting human language processing difficulty.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a valuable contribution by demonstrating a simple technique - temperature scaling - that can substantially improve the ability of large language models to estimate human language processing difficulty. This is an important step towards better aligning these powerful AI systems with human cognitive profiles.

However, the paper does not explore the reasons behind the decreased psycholinguistic predictive power of very large language models in depth. While the authors rule out poor calibration as a factor, there may be other model-specific or data-related reasons that warrant further investigation.

Additionally, the paper focuses on reading time as the sole measure of language processing difficulty. Other psycholinguistic measures, such as eye-tracking or event-related potentials, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how well language models capture human language processing.

Further research could also investigate whether temperature scaling has similar benefits for other language-related tasks, such as predicting human judgments of sentence naturality or complexity.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that adjusting the confidence of large language models through temperature scaling can significantly improve their ability to estimate word surprisal and predict human reading times. This suggests that the mismatch between language model predictions and human cognitive profiles may be, at least in part, a matter of calibration.

By bridging the gap between AI language models and human language processing, this research brings us closer to developing AI systems that can better understand and interact with human users. This prior work on the scaling properties of language models, combined with the insights from this paper, highlights the importance of carefully calibrating these powerful AI systems to better emulate human cognition.