Dual Alignment Between Humans and Language Models: Early Layers Corresponding to Natural Reading, Late Layers to Complex Syntactic Processing

The study reveals a dual alignment relationship between humans and language models: early layers correspond to natural reading scenarios with simple syntax, while late layers correspond to complex syntactic ambiguity processing; it also finds that even late layers underestimate human cognitive load, revealing the essential differences in the mechanisms of human and machine language understanding.

The surprisal theory posits that the cognitive effort in human reading is related to the word prediction probability of language models (the more unpredictable a word is, the more effort it takes), providing a quantitative bridge connecting models and cognition. Kuribayashi et al. (2025) found that the surprisal of early layers in LLMs can model natural reading behavior, but this raises a question: Does the advantage of early layers apply to complex syntactic structures? Single-layer surprisal has been proven to underestimate cognitive effort in syntactic ambiguity scenarios.

Natural Reading and Early Layers

In natural reading with simple syntax, human behavior is more similar to the early layers of the model, relying on shallow prediction mechanisms.

Syntactic Ambiguity Processing and Late Layers

When facing syntactic ambiguity (e.g., garden-path sentences), the late layers of the model are better at estimating human cognitive effort, but still underestimate the actual load, suggesting an essential difference between human and machine mechanisms.

The study reveals two modes of human sentence processing: Mode 1: Natural reading uses a shallow prediction mechanism (similar to the early layers of the model), relying on fast heuristic strategies; Mode 2: Processing syntactic challenges switches to a deep mode (similar to the late layers of the model), but the depth of human processing exceeds that of current models. This duality challenges the analogy of 'humans = deep networks', indicating that human language understanding is a dynamic multi-level system.

The innovations include:

1. Multi-layer information fusion: Integrate shallow and deep prediction information;
2. Dynamic weight adjustment: Adaptively adjust layer contributions based on sentence complexity;
3. Utilization of complementary advantages: Shallow fast preliminary prediction + deep refined reasoning. Experiments show that the multi-layer method complements the advantages of single-layer surprisal in modeling reading time, especially in complex syntactic scenarios.

1. Avoid over-simplifying the human-machine analogy: Although models perform well, the flexibility and depth of human language processing are unique;
2. Directions for model improvement: Need to better integrate world knowledge or fine-grained reasoning mechanisms;
3. Cross-research paradigm: Deepen the understanding of similarities and differences between humans and models by comparing human behavior and model internal representations.

Limitations: The experiments focus on English syntactic ambiguity; the alignment patterns for other languages or pragmatic/metaphorical understanding remain to be explored. Future Directions:

• Expand to more languages to test cross-linguistic universality;
• Explore the role of middle layers in human processing;
• Develop new model architectures that dynamically adjust processing depth;
• Study the impact of training data distribution on layer-behavior alignment.