Why are language models less surprised than humans? Testing the Parse Multiplicity Mismatch Hypothesis
Authors: William Timkey, Brian Dillon, Tal Linzen
Summary
arXiv:2605. 15440v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Surprisal theory posits that the processing difficulty of a word is determined by its predictability in context, offering a potential link between human sentence processing and next-word predictions from language models.
Relevance
Read next because Why are language models less surprised than humans? Testing the Parse Multiplicity Mismatch Hypothesis overlaps with clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Leakage rate is a usable signal for recovering trigger-shaped phrases on Gaperon-1125-1B without knowing the hidden trigger itself (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: text, word, under, compare, control, full, test, language. Source: arxiv cs.CL (NLP).
Abstract
arXiv:2605.15440v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Surprisal theory posits that the processing difficulty of a word is determined by its predictability in context, offering a potential link between human sentence processing and next-word predictions from language models. While language model (LM) surprisals successfully predict reading times in naturalistic text, they systematically underpredict the magnitude of difficulty observed in controlled studies of syntactic ambiguity, particularly in garden path sentences. This mismatch might arise from differences in the computational constraints between humans and LMs. Here we test one such hypothesis, specifically, that LMs may be able to simultaneously consider a greater number of distinct sentence interpretations at once, compared to humans. Using Recurrent Neural Network Grammars (RNNGs) with word-synchronous beam search, we systematically vary the number of simultaneous parses used to compute word surprisal, and then use these surprisals to predict human reading times. Reducing the number of simultaneous active parses indeed increases the magnitude of predicted garden path effects, but not nearly enough to capture the full magnitude of the effects in humans. This suggests that differences in the number of simultaneous parses available to LMs and humans cannot reconcile LM-based surprisal with human sentence processing.