aiqbench analysis
This study investigates whether language-variety-specific training enhances the predictive alignment of autoregressive models with human reading processes in Cantonese. By leveraging eye-tracking data, researchers found that extensively Cantonese-adapted models generally outperform general-purpose variants in capturing lexical and syntactic expectations, though specific metric choices influence model rankings. The findings offer critical insights into optimizing psycholinguistic alignment for low-resource dialects through targeted continued pretraining.
Do Cantonese-Adapted Language Models Better Predict Cantonese Reading? A Cross-Model Eye-Tracking Evaluation
arXiv:2609.02163v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Information-theoretic measures derived from autoregressive language models are widely used to characterize the expectations that shape human reading, but whether language-variety-specific training improves such psycholinguistic alignment remains unclear. This question is still open for Cantonese, where recent NLP evaluations reported mixed benefits from Cantonese-specific training relative to Mandarin-oriented or general-purpose models. Using naturalistic Cantonese eye-tracking data, we compare two within-family adaptation contrasts: CKIP GPT-2 Tiny versus its lightly Cantonese-adapted JED351 derivative, and Qwen2.5-7B versus CantoneseLLM-7B, which underwent substantially more extensive Cantonese continued pretraining and instruction tuning. From each model, we derive lexical surprisal, POS surprisal, entropy before the target, and entropy reduction. Lexical surprisal and the joint four-metric model consistently favor CantoneseLLM-7B, followed by Qwen2.5-7B, CKIP, and JED351, whereas entropy reduction favors CKIP. These results suggest that more extensive Cantonese-specific training can be associated with stronger predictive fit, while model rankings also depend on the information-theoretic measure being evaluated.
Title:Do Cantonese-Adapted Language Models Better Predict Cantonese Reading? A Cross-Model Eye-Tracking Evaluation
Abstract:Information-theoretic measures derived from autoregressive language models are widely used to characterize the expectations that shape human reading, but whether language-variety-specific training improves such psycholinguistic alignment remains unclear. This question is still open for Cantonese, where recent NLP evaluations reported mixed benefits from Cantonese-specific training relative to Mandarin-oriented or general-purpose models. Using naturalistic Cantonese eye-tracking data, we compare two within-family adaptation contrasts: CKIP GPT-2 Tiny versus its lightly Cantonese-adapted JED351 derivative, and Qwen2.5-7B versus CantoneseLLM-7B, which underwent substantially more extensive Cantonese continued pretraining and instruction tuning. From each model, we derive lexical surprisal, POS surprisal, entropy before the target, and entropy reduction. Lexical surprisal and the joint four-metric model consistently favor CantoneseLLM-7B, followed by Qwen2.5-7B, CKIP, and JED351, whereas entropy reduction favors CKIP. These results suggest that more extensive Cantonese-specific training can be associated with stronger predictive fit, while model rankings also depend on the information-theoretic measure being evaluated.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.02163 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.02163v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.02163 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 256 words
Related coverage
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
Continual Learning Bench: measuring whether AI systems actually improve with experience
Snorkel AI Blog · Aug 21, 2026
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026

Benchtalks #3: We taught AI everything except how to learn
Snorkel AI Blog · Jun 25, 2026