What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scores

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01538v2
• Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:35:36 GMT
• Title: What Are Large Language Models Mapping to in the Brain? A Case Against Over-Reliance on Brain Scores
• Authors: Ebrahim Feghhi, Nima Hadidi, Bryan Song, Idan A. Blank, Jonathan C. Kao,
• Abstract summary: Internal representations from large language models (LLMs) achieve state-of-the-art brain scores, leading to speculation that they share computational principles with human language processing. Here, we analyze three neural datasets used in an impactful study on LLM-to-brain mappings, with a particular focus on an fMRI dataset where participants read short passages. We find that brain scores of trained LLMs on this dataset can largely be explained by sentence length, position, and pronoun-dereferenced static word embeddings.
• Score: 1.8175282137722093
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Given the remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs), there has been a growing interest in evaluating their similarity to the human brain. One approach towards quantifying this similarity is by measuring how well a model predicts neural signals, also called "brain score". Internal representations from LLMs achieve state-of-the-art brain scores, leading to speculation that they share computational principles with human language processing. This inference is only valid if the subset of neural activity predicted by LLMs reflects core elements of language processing. Here, we question this assumption by analyzing three neural datasets used in an impactful study on LLM-to-brain mappings, with a particular focus on an fMRI dataset where participants read short passages. We first find that when using shuffled train-test splits, as done in previous studies with these datasets, a trivial feature that encodes temporal autocorrelation not only outperforms LLMs but also accounts for the majority of neural variance that LLMs explain. We therefore use contiguous splits moving forward. Second, we explain the surprisingly high brain scores of untrained LLMs by showing they do not account for additional neural variance beyond two simple features: sentence length and sentence position. This undermines evidence used to claim that the transformer architecture biases computations to be more brain-like. Third, we find that brain scores of trained LLMs on this dataset can largely be explained by sentence length, position, and pronoun-dereferenced static word embeddings; a small, additional amount is explained by sense-specific embeddings and contextual representations of sentence structure. We conclude that over-reliance on brain scores can lead to over-interpretations of similarity between LLMs and brains, and emphasize the importance of deconstructing what LLMs are mapping to in neural signals.

Related papers

• Brain-Like Language Processing via a Shallow Untrained Multihead Attention Network [16.317199232071232]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective models of the human language system. In this work, we investigate the key architectural components driving the surprising alignment of untrained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T12:54:03Z)
• An Investigation of Neuron Activation as a Unified Lens to Explain Chain-of-Thought Eliciting Arithmetic Reasoning of LLMs [8.861378619584093]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong arithmetic reasoning capabilities when prompted with Chain-of-Thought prompts. We investigate neuron activation'' as a lens to provide a unified explanation to observations made by prior work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T05:49:24Z)
• Sharing Matters: Analysing Neurons Across Languages and Tasks in LLMs [70.3132264719438]
  We aim to fill the research gap by examining how neuron activation is shared across tasks and languages. We classify neurons into four distinct categories based on their responses to a specific input across different languages. Our analysis reveals the following insights: (i) the patterns of neuron sharing are significantly affected by the characteristics of tasks and examples; (ii) neuron sharing does not fully correspond with language similarity; (iii) shared neurons play a vital role in generating responses, especially those shared across all languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:04:11Z)
• What Languages are Easy to Language-Model? A Perspective from Learning Probabilistic Regular Languages [78.1866280652834]
  Large language models (LM) are distributions over strings. We investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs. We find that the complexity of the RLM rank is strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:34:24Z)
• Revealing the Parallel Multilingual Learning within Large Language Models [50.098518799536144]
  In this study, we reveal an in-context learning capability of multilingual large language models (LLMs) By translating the input to several languages, we provide Parallel Input in Multiple Languages (PiM) to LLMs, which significantly enhances their comprehension abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T03:33:46Z)
• Do Large Language Models Mirror Cognitive Language Processing? [43.68923267228057]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities in text comprehension and logical reasoning. In cognitive science, brain cognitive processing signals are typically utilized to study human language processing. We employ Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to measure the alignment between 23 mainstream LLMs and fMRI signals of the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T03:38:20Z)
• Contextual Feature Extraction Hierarchies Converge in Large Language Models and the Brain [12.92793034617015]
  We show that as large language models (LLMs) achieve higher performance on benchmark tasks, they become more brain-like. We also show the importance of contextual information in improving model performance and brain similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T08:48:35Z)
• Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [63.405788999891335]
  Recent research has hinted that brain signals can be effectively predicted using internal representations of language models (LMs) We show that there are clear differences in how LMs and humans represent and use language. We identify two domains that are not captured well by LMs: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z)
• Human Behavioral Benchmarking: Numeric Magnitude Comparison Effects in Large Language Models [4.412336603162406]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) do not differentially represent numbers, which are pervasive in text. In this work, we investigate how well popular LLMs capture the magnitudes of numbers from a behavioral lens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T07:50:44Z)
• Neural Language Models are not Born Equal to Fit Brain Data, but Training Helps [75.84770193489639]
  We examine the impact of test loss, training corpus and model architecture on the prediction of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging timecourses of participants listening to an audiobook. We find that untrained versions of each model already explain significant amount of signal in the brain by capturing similarity in brain responses across identical words. We suggest good practices for future studies aiming at explaining the human language system using neural language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-07T15:37:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.