Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2505.12196

Vectors from Larger Language Models Predict Human Reading Time and fMRI Data More Poorly when Dimensionality Expansion is Controlled

Abstract

The impressive linguistic abilities of large language models (LLMs) have recommended them as models of human sentence processing, with some conjecturing a positive 'quality-power' relationship, in which language models' (LMs') fit to psychometric data continues to improve as their ability to predict words in context increases. This is important because it might suggest that elements of LLM architecture reflect the architecture of the human sentence processing faculty, and that any inadequacies in predicting human reading time and brain imaging data may be attributed to insufficient model complexity, which recedes as larger models become available. But recent studies have shown this scaling inverts after a point, as LMs become excessively large and accurate, when information-theoretic surprisal is used as a predictor. Other studies propose the use of entire vectors from differently sized LLMs, still showing positive scaling, casting doubt on the value of surprisal as a predictor, but do not control for dimensionality expansion using untrained LLMs with more than 1.6B parameters. This study evaluates scaling of LLM vector predictors controlled using untrained LLMs with up to 66B parameters. Results show that inverse scaling obtains, and moreover the contribution of trained LMs over corresponding untrained LMs drops to zero at around a few billion parameters on most datasets.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yi-Chien Lin, Hongao Zhu, William Schuler. 2026-08-29. Vectors from Larger Language Models Predict Human Reading Time and fMRI Data More Poorly when Dimensionality Expansion is Controlled. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12196

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Informational Antilocality and the Locality Bias in LLMs

We consider the ability of transformer-based language models (LLMs) to learn what we call k-antilocal languages, i.e., languages that have no mutual information across any span of $k$ contiguous symbols. We construct such languages with increasing $k$, finding that LLMs trained on them achieve comparable cross-entropy loss regardless of antilocality, but converge more slowly on more antilocal languages. Our findings support the idea that non-local dependencies are more difficult to learn, but the evidence for this bias comes from learning speed rather than learning success.

cs.CL

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

Do LLM Agents Mirror Socio-Cognitive Effects in Power-Asymmetric Conversations?

Power differences shape human communication through well documented socio cognitive effects, including language coordination, pronoun usage, authority bias, and harmful compliance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar behaviors when assigned high or low status personas. Using personas from diverse professions, we simulate multi turn, power asymmetric dialogues (e.g., principal teacher, justice lawyer) and measure (i) language coordination, (ii) pronoun usage, (iii) persuasion success, and (iv) compliance with unsafe requests. Our results show that LLMs show key socio-cognitive effects of power, albeit with nuances and variability, linking simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe behaviors.

cs.CL