paper-with-me

Papers

surprisal is Not a Theory

2026-07-22 · Andrés Buxó-Lugo, Aniello De Santo, Morgan Grobol, Ryan J. Hubbard, Cassandra L. Jacobs arxiv

Surprisal Theory is often characterized as a computational-level explanation per (Marr, 1982). We argue in this work that, even though a computational level narrative has been used to support "representation-agnostic research" within computational psycholinguistics, the movement toward black box systems embodied by large language models (LLMs) does not exempt modelers using the surprisal metric from the representational decisions required by computational-level characterizations. In fact, we argue that the uncritical use of LLM-surprisal obfuscates the representational and algorithmic-level commitments of different models. In three analyses, we show that the choice of algorithm and model architecture play significant roles in the computation of language model probabilities. We advise that researchers who wish to test Surprisal Theory re-evaluate the practice of treating large language model probabilities as interchangeable

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2607.20208

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Towards a Similarity-adjusted Surprisal Theory

2024-10-23 · Clara Meister, Mario Giulianelli, Tiago Pimentel

Surprisal theory posits that the cognitive effort required to comprehend a word is determined by its contextual predictability, quantified as surprisal. Traditionally, surprisal theory treats words as distinct entities, …

Diversity

Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languages

2023-07-07 · Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Tiago Pimentel, Clara Meister, Ryan Cotterell 외

A fundamental result in psycholinguistics is that less predictable words take a longer time to process. One theoretical explanation for this finding is Surprisal Theory (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008), which quantifies a word's…

Dependency Locality and Neural Surprisal as Predictors of Processing Difficulty: Evidence from Reading Times

2021-06-01 · NAACL (CMCL) 2021 6 · Neil Rathi

This paper compares two influential theories of processing difficulty: Gibson (2000)’s Dependency Locality Theory (DLT) and Hale (2001)’s Surprisal Theory. While prior work has aimed to compare DLT and Surprisal Theory (…

Surprisal Theory is Tautological (without Rational Grounding)

2026-07-23 · Ryan Cotterell arxiv

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: …

On the Proper Treatment of Units in Surprisal Theory

2026-04-30 · Samuel Kiegeland, Vésteinn Snæbjarnarson, Tim Vieira, Ryan Cotterell arxiv

Surprisal theory links human processing effort to the predictability of an upcoming linguistic unit, but empirical work often leaves the notion of a unit underspecified. In practice, experimental stimuli are segmented in…