What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scores
2406.01538
0
0
Abstract
Given the remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs), there has been a growing interest in evaluating their similarity to the human brain. One approach towards quantifying this similarity is by measuring how well a model predicts neural signals, also called brain score. Internal representations from LLMs achieve state-of-the-art brain scores, leading to speculation that they share computational principles with human language processing. This inference is only valid if the subset of neural activity predicted by LLMs reflects core elements of language processing. Here, we question this assumption by analyzing three neural datasets used in an impactful study on LLM-to-brain mappings, with a particular focus on an fMRI dataset where participants read short passages. We first find that when using shuffled train-test splits, as done in previous studies with these datasets, a trivial feature that encodes temporal autocorrelation not only outperforms LLMs but also accounts for the majority of neural variance that LLMs explain. We therefore use contiguous splits moving forward. Second, we explain the surprisingly high brain scores of untrained LLMs by showing they do not account for additional neural variance beyond two simple features: sentence length and sentence position. This undermines evidence used to claim that the transformer architecture biases computations to be more brain-like. Third, we find that brain scores of trained LLMs on this dataset can largely be explained by sentence length, position, and pronoun-dereferenced static word embeddings; a small, additional amount is explained by sense-specific embeddings and contextual representations of sentence structure. We conclude that over-reliance on brain scores can lead to over-interpretations of similarity between LLMs and brains, and emphasize the importance of deconstructing what LLMs are mapping to in neural signals.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) are truly mapping to the same cognitive processes as the human brain, or if the common brain score metric used to evaluate them is an oversimplification.
- The authors argue that relying too heavily on brain score metrics to assess LLMs may miss important nuances in how these models represent and process language compared to the human brain.
- The paper presents several experiments and analyses to better understand the relationship between LLMs and human language processing, with the goal of providing a more holistic evaluation.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the relationship between large language models (LLMs) - powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text - and the human brain. Researchers often use a metric called "brain score" to evaluate how well an LLM's internal representations match those observed in the human brain during language tasks. A high brain score suggests the LLM is mapping to similar cognitive processes as the human brain.
However, the authors of this paper argue that brain scores may be an oversimplified way to assess LLMs. They suggest that LLMs could be mapping to the brain in complex ways that aren't fully captured by brain scores. For example, an LLM might use different strategies or representations than the human brain, but still achieve a high brain score.
To explore this further, the researchers conducted several experiments. They looked at how well LLM representations match human behavioral data on language tasks, not just brain activity. They also examined how LLM representations change as the models become more complex, and how that compares to changes in the human brain. Additionally, they investigated whether LLMs exhibit aspects of human memory similar to the brain.
The key finding is that while LLMs can achieve high brain scores, they may not be fully replicating the underlying cognitive processes of the human brain when it comes to language. The authors suggest that future research should look beyond just brain scores and explore the deeper connections between LLMs and human language processing.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a series of experiments and analyses to investigate the relationship between large language models (LLMs) and the human brain's language processing.
The authors first examine the common practice of using "brain scores" to evaluate how well an LLM's internal representations match those observed in the human brain during language tasks. They argue that brain scores may be an oversimplified metric that fails to capture the nuanced ways in which LLMs could be mapping to the brain.
To explore this further, the researchers conducted several experiments:
-
They compared LLM representations to human behavioral data on language tasks, not just brain activity. This provided a more holistic assessment of how well the LLMs aligned with human language processing.
The results suggest that while LLMs can achieve high brain scores, they may not be fully replicating the underlying cognitive processes of the human brain when it comes to language. The authors argue that future research should move beyond just brain scores and explore the deeper connections between LLMs and human language processing.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important points about the limitations of using brain scores alone to evaluate large language models (LLMs). The authors make a compelling case that brain scores may oversimplify the complex relationship between LLMs and the human brain's language processing.
One of the key strengths of the paper is the multifaceted approach it takes to assessing the connection between LLMs and the brain. By looking at human behavioral data, changes in representations with model complexity, and aspects of human memory, the researchers provide a more holistic picture than relying solely on brain score metrics.
However, the paper could be strengthened by a more detailed discussion of the potential implications of their findings. While the authors suggest that future research should explore the deeper connections between LLMs and human language processing, they could delve further into the practical significance of this for fields like cognitive science, AI development, and natural language processing.
Additionally, the paper would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the limitations of the study. For example, the experiments were conducted on a relatively small set of LLMs and language tasks, and the findings may not generalize to all LLMs or language processing abilities.
Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate around the relationship between large language models and the human brain. By challenging the over-reliance on brain scores, the authors encourage a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to evaluating these powerful AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper presents a compelling argument against the over-reliance on brain scores as the primary metric for evaluating how well large language models (LLMs) map to the human brain's language processing. Through a series of experiments, the authors demonstrate that while LLMs can achieve high brain scores, they may not be fully replicating the underlying cognitive processes of the human brain.
The key takeaway is that researchers and developers need to move beyond simplistic brain score comparisons and explore the deeper connections between LLMs and human language processing. By looking at a broader range of factors, such as behavioral data, model complexity, and memory effects, the paper suggests a path forward for a more holistic understanding of how these powerful AI systems relate to the human mind.
As the field of natural language processing continues to advance, this research highlights the importance of critical thinking and a nuanced approach when assessing the capabilities and limitations of large language models. By challenging the status quo and encouraging a more comprehensive evaluation, the authors of this paper have made a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue around the relationship between artificial and human intelligence.
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
On the Shape of Brainscores for Large Language Models (LLMs)
Jingkai Li
0
0
With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), the novel metric Brainscore emerged as a means to evaluate the functional similarity between LLMs and human brain/neural systems. Our efforts were dedicated to mining the meaning of the novel score by constructing topological features derived from both human fMRI data involving 190 subjects, and 39 LLMs plus their untrained counterparts. Subsequently, we trained 36 Linear Regression Models and conducted thorough statistical analyses to discern reliable and valid features from our constructed ones. Our findings reveal distinctive feature combinations conducive to interpreting existing brainscores across various brain regions of interest (ROIs) and hemispheres, thereby significantly contributing to advancing interpretable machine learning (iML) studies. The study is enriched by our further discussions and analyses concerning existing brainscores. To our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to comprehend the novel metric brainscore within this interdisciplinary domain.
5/16/2024
Do Large Language Models Mirror Cognitive Language Processing?
Yuqi Ren, Renren Jin, Tongxuan Zhang, Deyi Xiong
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities in text comprehension and logical reasoning, indicating that the text representations learned by LLMs can facilitate their language processing capabilities. In cognitive science, brain cognitive processing signals are typically utilized to study human language processing. Therefore, it is natural to ask how well the text embeddings from LLMs align with the brain cognitive processing signals, and how training strategies affect the LLM-brain alignment? In this paper, we employ Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to measure the alignment between 23 mainstream LLMs and fMRI signals of the brain to evaluate how effectively LLMs simulate cognitive language processing. We empirically investigate the impact of various factors (e.g., pre-training data size, model scaling, alignment training, and prompts) on such LLM-brain alignment. Experimental results indicate that pre-training data size and model scaling are positively correlated with LLM-brain similarity, and alignment training can significantly improve LLM-brain similarity. Explicit prompts contribute to the consistency of LLMs with brain cognitive language processing, while nonsensical noisy prompts may attenuate such alignment. Additionally, the performance of a wide range of LLM evaluations (e.g., MMLU, Chatbot Arena) is highly correlated with the LLM-brain similarity.
5/29/2024
Brain-Like Language Processing via a Shallow Untrained Multihead Attention Network
Badr AlKhamissi, Greta Tuckute, Antoine Bosselut, Martin Schrimpf
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective models of the human language system, with some models predicting most explainable variance of brain activity in current datasets. Even in untrained models, the representations induced by architectural priors can exhibit reasonable alignment to brain data. In this work, we investigate the key architectural components driving the surprising alignment of untrained models. To estimate LLM-to-brain similarity, we first select language-selective units within an LLM, similar to how neuroscientists identify the language network in the human brain. We then benchmark the brain alignment of these LLM units across five different brain recording datasets. By isolating critical components of the Transformer architecture, we identify tokenization strategy and multihead attention as the two major components driving brain alignment. A simple form of recurrence further improves alignment. We further demonstrate this quantitative brain alignment of our model by reproducing landmark studies in the language neuroscience field, showing that localized model units -- just like language voxels measured empirically in the human brain -- discriminate more reliably between lexical than syntactic differences, and exhibit similar response profiles under the same experimental conditions. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our model's representations for language modeling, achieving improved sample and parameter efficiency over comparable architectures. Our model's estimates of surprisal sets a new state-of-the-art in the behavioral alignment to human reading times. Taken together, we propose a highly brain- and behaviorally-aligned model that conceptualizes the human language system as an untrained shallow feature encoder, with structural priors, combined with a trained decoder to achieve efficient and performant language processing.
6/24/2024
Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results
Xiaoliang Luo, Akilles Rechardt, Guangzhi Sun, Kevin K. Nejad, Felipe Y'a~nez, Bati Yilmaz, Kangjoo Lee, Alexandra O. Cohen, Valentina Borghesani, Anton Pashkov, Daniele Marinazzo, Jonathan Nicholas, Alessandro Salatiello, Ilia Sucholutsky, Pasquale Minervini, Sepehr Razavi, Roberta Rocca, Elkhan Yusifov, Tereza Okalova, Nianlong Gu, Martin Ferianc, Mikail Khona, Kaustubh R. Patil, Pui-Shee Lee, Rui Mata, Nicholas E. Myers, Jennifer K Bizley, Sebastian Musslick, Isil Poyraz Bilgin, Guiomar Niso, Justin M. Ales, Michael Gaebler, N Apurva Ratan Murty, Leyla Loued-Khenissi, Anna Behler, Chloe M. Hall, Jessica Dafflon, Sherry Dongqi Bao, Bradley C. Love
0
0
Scientific discoveries often hinge on synthesizing decades of research, a task that potentially outstrips human information processing capacities. Large language models (LLMs) offer a solution. LLMs trained on the vast scientific literature could potentially integrate noisy yet interrelated findings to forecast novel results better than human experts. To evaluate this possibility, we created BrainBench, a forward-looking benchmark for predicting neuroscience results. We find that LLMs surpass experts in predicting experimental outcomes. BrainGPT, an LLM we tuned on the neuroscience literature, performed better yet. Like human experts, when LLMs were confident in their predictions, they were more likely to be correct, which presages a future where humans and LLMs team together to make discoveries. Our approach is not neuroscience-specific and is transferable to other knowledge-intensive endeavors.
6/24/2024