Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

Cross-lingual brain-language model alignment is robust but challenges hierarchical and computational accounts

arxiv.org/abs/2605.21049

quality89

Updated 6 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294G5WCDRPN9XEKAJA05ST0

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 6 h ago
arXiv
2605.21049
T1 · 6 h ago
Category
cs.CL
T1 · 6 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21049currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Brain-language model alignment is often interpreted as evidence that transformer models implement computations similar to those of the human brain. This assumes that neural predictivity reflects internal computational properties of large language models (LLMs), such as hierarchical contextual processing, predictive coding, or representational compression. An alternative possibility is that brain scores primarily reflect stable lexical-semantic correspondences shared by language models and the brain. Here we tested these interpretations using whole-brain encoding models across Mandarin, English, and French. Across all three languages, transformer representations significantly predicted activity in a distributed network spanning classical language regions, transmodal cortical systems, and subcortical structures. These spatial patterns showed substantial cross-linguistic overlap and remained remarkably stable across layers, providing little evidence that model depth systematically maps onto cortical processing hierarchies. Likewise, contextual transformer embeddings did not consistently outperform static lexical embeddings, despite providing some unique predictive variance. Finally, neither surprisal nor intrinsic dimensionality reproduced the layer-wise profile of brain scores, arguing against prediction and information compression as primary explanations for brain-LLM alignment. Together, these findings suggest that brain-LLM alignment is more robust across languages, transformer depth, and model architectures than previously appreciated, but less informative about shared computational mechanisms. Our results are more consistent with neural predictivity reflecting stable representational structure preserved across model transformations than with a one-to-one correspondence between their underlying computations.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
replacecurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
2605.21049currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Ni Yang, Rui He, Philipp Homan, Iris Sommer, Davide Staub, Wolfram HinzencurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.CLcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.21049currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.CLcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
11 Sept 2026currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →