Hugging Face Trending Papers

Surprisal Theory is Tautological (without Rational Grounding)

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

LLM surprisal is necessary but not sufficient to capture English garden-path effects: Evidence from joint latent modeling of reading paradigms

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 Computation and Language
Sep 16

surprisal is Not a Theory

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
arXiv AI
Aug 17

The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI

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