Back

Thinking ahead: prediction in context as a keystone of language in humans and machines

Goldstein, A.; Zada, Z.; Buchnik, E.; Schain, M.; Price, A.; Aubrey, B.; Nastase, S. A.; Feder, A.; Emanuel, D.; Cohen, A.; Jansen, A.; Gazula, H.; Choe, G.; Rao, A.; Kim, C.; Casto, C.; Lora, F.; Flinker, A.; Devore, S.; Doyle, W.; Dugan, P.; Friedman, D.; Hassidim, A.; Brenner, M.; Matias, Y.; Norman, K. A.; Devinsky, O.; Hasson, U.

2021-01-07 neuroscience
10.1101/2020.12.02.403477 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Departing from traditional linguistic models, advances in deep learning have resulted in a new type of predictive (autoregressive) deep language models (DLMs). Using a self-supervised next-word prediction task, these models are trained to generate appropriate linguistic responses in a given context. We provide empirical evidence that the human brain and autoregressive DLMs share three fundamental computational principles as they process natural language: 1) both are engaged in continuous next-word prediction before word-onset; 2) both match their pre-onset predictions to the incoming word to calculate post-onset surprise (i.e., prediction error signals); 3) both represent words as a function of the previous context. In support of these three principles, our findings indicate that: a) the neural activity before word-onset contains context-dependent predictive information about forthcoming words, even hundreds of milliseconds before the words are perceived; b) the neural activity after word-onset reflects the surprise level and prediction error; and c) autoregressive DLM contextual embeddings capture the neural representation of context-specific word meaning better than arbitrary or static semantic embeddings. Together, our findings suggest that autoregressive DLMs provide a novel and biologically feasible computational framework for studying the neural basis of language.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.