Surprisal theory holds that the human processing difficulty of a linguistic unit in context is an affine function of its surprisal under some language model. I argue this claim is a tautology without further constraint: for any non-negative difficulty measure over units in context, there exists a language model whose surprisal is an affine function of it under mild technical conditions.
arXiv:2509.15114v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: A controversial test for Large Language Models concerns the ability to discern possible from impossible language. While some evidence attests to th...
By Evelina Leivada, Raquel Montero, Paolo Morosi, Natalia Moskvina, Tamara Serrano, Nikoleta Pantelidou, Marcel Aguilar, Fritz Guenther
The study introduces a latent‑process multinomial processing tree (MPT) model to analyze human reading and comprehension of garden‑path sentences across four reading paradigms (eye tracking, uni‑ and bidirectional self‑paced reading, Maze). The model separates the likelihood of an incorrect initial analysis, the cost of encountering an incompatible continuation, and the cost of syntactic reanalysis, yielding more realistic parameter estimates when inattentive trials are considered. Cross‑validation shows that this MPT model predicts human reading patterns and end‑of‑trial judgments better than a model relying solely on large‑language‑model (LLM) surprisal, and that incorporating surprisal as an additional predictor further improves fit.
By Dario Paape, Tal Linzen, Shravan Vasishth
arXiv:2608. 11138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose that a model's uncertainty about a token is reflected not only in the breadth of its output distribution but also in whether a confident prediction is \emph{fragile} under perturbation of its attention pathways.
By Minsoo Kim, Sungyoung Ji, Kisung Moon, Ilyong Yoon
The article argues that Surprisal Theory, often presented as a computational-level explanation, is not a theory in its own right. It contends that using large language model (LLM) surprisals without considering the underlying representational and algorithmic choices obscures the theory’s commitments. The authors demonstrate through three analyses that algorithm and architecture significantly influence language model probabilities, urging researchers to reassess treating LLM surprisals as interchangeable.
By Andr\'es Bux\'o-Lugo, Aniello De Santo, Morgan Grobol, Ryan J. Hubbard, Cassandra L. Jacobs
The paper investigates why AI-generated text has become harder to understand, focusing on psycholinguistic features linked to human processing difficulty such as object relative clauses, long syntactic dependencies, and low-frequency n-grams. Using a new corpus of AI-generated text from diverse domains, the study finds that frontier and near-frontier language models employ these difficult features more frequently than paraphrases from round-trip translation and human writing, including more inanimate subjects with animate verbs, longer dependencies, stacked nouns, and reduced object relatives. The authors hypothesize that AI models prioritize information density for tasks like math, code, and reasoning, diverging from human communication goals, and demonstrate this by fine‑tuning a model with a length penalty, which reduces human‑like linguistic behavior.
By Thomas Hikaru Clark, Matias B. Martin, Kyle Mahowald
arXiv:2608.22452v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Surprisal, the negative log-probability a language model assigns to a word given its preceding context, reliably predicts adult reading times. Does it...
By Francisco Portillo L\'opez
arXiv:2610.09571v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Negation is an essential feature of human language, yet large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable in processing it. We evaluate recent open-source...
By Jongwook Yoon, Jongwon Lim, Sungjib Lim, Woojin Cho, Yohan Jo
arXiv:2609.34187v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: The strong version of the stochastic parrot argument claims that, although large language models (LLMs) may exceed rote regurgitation, they c...
By Julia Witte Zimmerman, Calla G. Beauregard, Tabia Tanzin Prama, Parisa Suchdev, Kathryn Cramer, Elisabeth Kollrack
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
arXiv:2609.15522v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) with human-like performance on linguistic tasks have transformed the study of language in neurodiverse conditions. LLMs pr...
By Samuele Vallisa, Claudio Palominos, Rui He, Emre Bora, Burcu Verim, Cemal Demirlek, Berna Yalincetin, Philipp Homan, Wolfram Hinzen
arXiv:2603.22161v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Metacognition -- assessing the quality of one's own cognitive performance -- guides adaptive behavior across species. Substantial research demonstr...
By Dharshan Kumaran, Nathaniel Daw, Simon Osindero, Petar Veli\v{c}kovi\'c, Viorica Patraucean