Transformers underlie almost all state-of-the-art language models in computational linguistics, yet their cognitive adequacy as models of human sentence processing remains disputed. In this work, we use a surprisal-based linking mechanism to systematically evaluate eleven autoregressive transformers of varying sizes and architectures on a more comprehensive set of English agreement attraction configurations than prior work. Our experiments yield mixed results: While transformer predictions generally align with human reading time data for prepositional phrase configurations, performance degrades significantly on object-extracted relative clause configurations. In the latter case, predictions also diverge markedly across models, and no model successfully replicates the asymmetric interference patterns observed in humans. We conclude that current transformer models do not explain human morphosyntactic processing, and that evaluations of transformers as cognitive models must adopt rigorous, comprehensive experimental designs to avoid spurious generalizations from isolated syntactic configurations or individual models.

We examine audience-specific how-to guides on wikiHow, in English, diachronically by comparing predictions from fine-tuned language models and human judgments. Using both early and revised versions, we quantitatively and qualitatively study how gender-specific features are identified over time. While language model performance remains relatively stable in terms of macro F₁-scores, we observe an increased reliance on stereotypical tokens. Notably, both models and human raters tend to overpredict women as an audience, raising questions about bias in the evaluation of educational systems and resources.