Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internally
This work addresses the cognitive modeling community's debate on LM plausibility, showing that prior conclusions were skewed and opening new interdisciplinary research avenues.
The paper tackles the problem of whether larger language models (LMs) are cognitively plausible by analyzing internal layers, finding that next-word probabilities from these layers align with human sentence processing data as well as or better than smaller LMs across behavioral and neurophysiological measures.
Recent cognitive modeling studies have reported that larger language models (LMs) exhibit a poorer fit to human reading behavior (Oh and Schuler, 2023b; Shain et al., 2024; Kuribayashi et al., 2024), leading to claims of their cognitive implausibility. In this paper, we revisit this argument through the lens of mechanistic interpretability and argue that prior conclusions were skewed by an exclusive focus on the final layers of LMs. Our analysis reveals that next-word probabilities derived from internal layers of larger LMs align with human sentence processing data as well as, or better than, those from smaller LMs. This alignment holds consistently across behavioral (self-paced reading times, gaze durations, MAZE task processing times) and neurophysiological (N400 brain potentials) measures, challenging earlier mixed results and suggesting that the cognitive plausibility of larger LMs has been underestimated. Furthermore, we first identify an intriguing relationship between LM layers and human measures: earlier layers correspond more closely with fast gaze durations, while later layers better align with relatively slower signals such as N400 potentials and MAZE processing times. Our work opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research at the intersection of mechanistic interpretability and cognitive modeling.