-
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:
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 c…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2024; v1 submitted 3 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Dissociating language and thought in large language models
Authors:
Kyle Mahowald,
Anna A. Ivanova,
Idan A. Blank,
Nancy Kanwisher,
Joshua B. Tenenbaum,
Evelina Fedorenko
Abstract:
Large Language Models (LLMs) have come closest among all models to date to mastering human language, yet opinions about their linguistic and cognitive capabilities remain split. Here, we evaluate LLMs using a distinction between formal linguistic competence -- knowledge of linguistic rules and patterns -- and functional linguistic competence -- understanding and using language in the world. We gro…
▽ More
Large Language Models (LLMs) have come closest among all models to date to mastering human language, yet opinions about their linguistic and cognitive capabilities remain split. Here, we evaluate LLMs using a distinction between formal linguistic competence -- knowledge of linguistic rules and patterns -- and functional linguistic competence -- understanding and using language in the world. We ground this distinction in human neuroscience, which has shown that formal and functional competence rely on different neural mechanisms. Although LLMs are surprisingly good at formal competence, their performance on functional competence tasks remains spotty and often requires specialized fine-tuning and/or coupling with external modules. We posit that models that use language in human-like ways would need to master both of these competence types, which, in turn, could require the emergence of mechanisms specialized for formal linguistic competence, distinct from functional competence.
△ Less
Submitted 23 March, 2024; v1 submitted 16 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Semantic projection: recovering human knowledge of multiple, distinct object features from word embeddings
Authors:
Gabriel Grand,
Idan Asher Blank,
Francisco Pereira,
Evelina Fedorenko
Abstract:
The words of a language reflect the structure of the human mind, allowing us to transmit thoughts between individuals. However, language can represent only a subset of our rich and detailed cognitive architecture. Here, we ask what kinds of common knowledge (semantic memory) are captured by word meanings (lexical semantics). We examine a prominent computational model that represents words as vecto…
▽ More
The words of a language reflect the structure of the human mind, allowing us to transmit thoughts between individuals. However, language can represent only a subset of our rich and detailed cognitive architecture. Here, we ask what kinds of common knowledge (semantic memory) are captured by word meanings (lexical semantics). We examine a prominent computational model that represents words as vectors in a multidimensional space, such that proximity between word-vectors approximates semantic relatedness. Because related words appear in similar contexts, such spaces - called "word embeddings" - can be learned from patterns of lexical co-occurrences in natural language. Despite their popularity, a fundamental concern about word embeddings is that they appear to be semantically "rigid": inter-word proximity captures only overall similarity, yet human judgments about object similarities are highly context-dependent and involve multiple, distinct semantic features. For example, dolphins and alligators appear similar in size, but differ in intelligence and aggressiveness. Could such context-dependent relationships be recovered from word embeddings? To address this issue, we introduce a powerful, domain-general solution: "semantic projection" of word-vectors onto lines that represent various object features, like size (the line extending from the word "small" to "big"), intelligence (from "dumb" to "smart"), or danger (from "safe" to "dangerous"). This method, which is intuitively analogous to placing objects "on a mental scale" between two extremes, recovers human judgments across a range of object categories and properties. We thus show that word embeddings inherit a wealth of common knowledge from word co-occurrence statistics and can be flexibly manipulated to express context-dependent meanings.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2018; v1 submitted 4 February, 2018;
originally announced February 2018.
