arXiv Computation and Language
Why is AI-generated language so hard to understand?
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31
Diverging Transformer Predictions for Human Sentence Processing: A Comprehensive Analysis of Agreement Attraction Effects
The study evaluates eleven autoregressive transformer models on English agreement attraction scenarios using a surprisal-based approach. Results show that while transformers match human reading times for prepositional phrase configurations, they perform poorly on object‑extracted relative clauses, with predictions diverging across models and failing to capture human interference patterns. The authors argue that current transformers cannot adequately model human morphosyntactic processing and call for more rigorous, comprehensive testing to avoid misleading conclusions from limited syntactic setups.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 18
Factors Influencing the Emergence of Dependency Length Minimization in Neural Agent Simulations
The study explores how neural agents develop dependency length minimization (DLM) in artificial languages using a recurrent neural network framework. By manipulating processing constraints such as listening noise, speaker capacity, and incremental sentence processing, the researchers find that DLM emerges only under incremental processing pressure, while other factors produce varied word‑order preferences. These results suggest that human cognitive processing limits may influence the emergence of DLM in language.
arXiv AI
Oct 7
STRUCTURALCOST: A controlled reading time dataset for modeling human sentence processing difficulty
STRUCTURALCOST is a self‑paced reading dataset comprising 475 participants and 40,800 observations that isolates the processing cost of long‑distance subject‑verb dependency resolution. The study replicates a known psycholinguistic finding at NLP scale: human reading times at the main verb increase with dependency length, driven by syntactic embedding beyond linear distance. Various language models—n‑gram, SSMs, and transformers—partially mirror this graded difficulty profile but consistently underestimate the integration cost humans incur, a gap that persists across architectures and model sizes.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4
Breaking the Likelihood Trap: Variance-Calibrated Modulation for Large Language Model Decoding
The paper introduces Variance‑Calibrated Modulation (VCM), a training‑free pre‑decoding technique that reshapes language model probability distributions before truncation. VCM uses two dynamic mechanisms: a Contextual Searchlight via PMI to suppress stopwords and highlight context‑relevant tokens, and an Adaptive Self‑Debiasing that applies scale‑invariant penalization based on real‑time logit standard deviation. Experiments on open‑ended generation, factual QA, and mathematical reasoning show that VCM consistently reduces the likelihood trap, improving diversity, coherence, and reasoning accuracy with minimal computational cost.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 14
Translationese as a Rational Response to Translation Task Difficulty
arXiv:2603.12050v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Translated texts exhibit systematic differences from comparable texts originally written in the target language. Explaining this phenomenon, common...
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31
AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not
The study demonstrates that text produced by large language models (LLMs) leaves a distinct stylometric footprint—primarily increased entropy and lexical diversity—across multiple models and domains. In contrast, AI editing of human text does not replicate this footprint; edited texts show only modest lexical diversity gains and reduced entropy, with lexical density emerging as the key distinguishing feature. Consequently, stylometric analysis can differentiate AI-generated from AI-edited content, but is less effective at distinguishing either from purely human writing.