Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable similarity to neural activity in the human language network. However, the key properties of language underlying this alignment—and how brain-like representations emerge and change across training—remain unclear. We here benchmark 34 training checkpoints spanning 300B tokens across 8 different model sizes to analyze how brain alignment relates to linguistic competence. Specifically, we find that brain alignment tracks the development of formal linguistic competence—i.e., knowledge of linguistic rules—more closely than functional linguistic competence. While functional competence, which involves world knowledge and reasoning, continues to develop throughout training, its relationship with brain alignment is weaker, suggesting that the human language network primarily encodes formal linguistic structure rather than broader cognitive functions. Notably, we find that the correlation between next-word prediction, behavioral alignment, and brain alignment fades once models surpass human language proficiency. We further show that model size is not a reliable predictor of brain alignment when controlling for the number of features. Finally, using the largest set of rigorous neural language benchmarks to date, we show that language brain alignment benchmarks remain unsaturated, highlighting opportunities for improving future models. Taken together, our findings suggest that the human language network is best modeled by formal, rather than functional, aspects of language.

While today’s large language models exhibit impressive abilities in generating human-like text, they require massive amounts of data during training. We here take inspiration from human cognitive development to train models in limited data conditions. Specifically we present a self-synthesis approach that iterates through four phases: Phase 1 sets up fundamental language abilities, training the model from scratch on a small corpus. Language is then associated with the visual environment in phase 2, integrating the model with a vision encoder to generate descriptive captions from labeled images. In the “self-synthesis” phase 3, the model generates captions for unlabeled images, that it then uses to further train its language component with a mix of synthetic, and previous real-world text. This phase is meant to expand the model’s linguistic repertoire, similar to humans self-annotating new experiences. Finally, phase 4 develops advanced cognitive skills, by training the model on specific tasks such as visual question answering and reasoning. Our approach offers a proof of concept for training a multimodal model using a developmentally plausible amount of data.

Large-scale vision-language models such as CLIP have shown impressive performance on zero-shot image classification and image-to-text retrieval. However, such performance does not realize in tasks that require a finer-grained correspondence between vision and language, such as Visual Question Answering (VQA). We investigate why this is the case, and report an interesting phenomenon of vision-language models, which we call the Concept Association Bias (CAB), as a potential cause of the difficulty of applying these models to VQA and similar tasks. We find that models with CAB tend to treat input as a bag of concepts and attempt to fill in the other missing concept crossmodally, leading to an unexpected zero-shot prediction. We demonstrate CAB by showing that CLIP’s zero-shot classification performance greatly suffers when there is a strong concept association between an object (e.g. eggplant) and an attribute (e.g. color purple). We also show that the strength of CAB predicts the performance on VQA. We observe that CAB is prevalent in vision-language models trained with contrastive losses, even when autoregressive losses are jointly employed. However, a model that solely relies on autoregressive loss seems to exhibit minimal or no signs of CAB.