What can LLMs tell us about the mechanisms behind polarity illusions in humans? Experiments across model scales and training steps

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27855v1
• Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:22:00 GMT
• Title: What can LLMs tell us about the mechanisms behind polarity illusions in humans? Experiments across model scales and training steps
• Abstract summary: I investigate if and how two well-known polarity illusions, the NPI illusion and the depth charge illusion, arise in LLMs.<n>The NPI illusion becomes weaker and ultimately disappears as model size increases, while the depth charge illusion becomes stronger in larger models.<n>It may not be necessary to assume "rational inference" mechanisms that convert ill-formed sentences into well-formed ones to explain polarity illusions.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: I use the Pythia scaling suite (Biderman et al. 2023) to investigate if and how two well-known polarity illusions, the NPI illusion and the depth charge illusion, arise in LLMs. The NPI illusion becomes weaker and ultimately disappears as model size increases, while the depth charge illusion becomes stronger in larger models. The results have implications for human sentence processing: it may not be necessary to assume "rational inference" mechanisms that convert ill-formed sentences into well-formed ones to explain polarity illusions, given that LLMs cannot plausibly engage in this kind of reasoning, especially at the implicit level of next-token prediction. On the other hand, shallow, "good enough" processing and/or partial grammaticalization of prescriptively ungrammatical structures may both occur in LLMs. I propose a synthesis of different theoretical accounts that is rooted in the basic tenets of construction grammar.

Related papers

• LLMorphism: When humans come to see themselves as language models [0.0]
  I argue that the rise of conversational LLMs may make this bias increasingly psychologically available.<n>I distinguish LLMorphism from mechanomorphism, anthropomorphism, computationalism, dehumanization, objectification, and predictive-processing theories of mind.<n>I conclude that the issue is not only whether we are attributing too much mind to machines, but also whether we are beginning to attribute too little mind to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T20:27:15Z)
• AbductiveMLLM: Boosting Visual Abductive Reasoning Within MLLMs [54.68257779000049]
  Visual abductive reasoning is a challenging task that requires AI systems to infer the most likely explanation for incomplete visual observations.<n>We introduce AbductiveMLLM comprising of two synergistic components: REASONER and IMAGINER.<n>Experiments on standard VAR benchmarks show that AbductiveMLLM achieves state-of-the-art performance, consistently outperforming traditional solutions and advanced MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T07:05:35Z)
• Reason-KE++: Aligning the Process, Not Just the Outcome, for Faithful LLM Knowledge Editing [63.96040994220329]
  We find that SFT-based methods, e.g., Reason-KE, suffer from a "faithfulness gap"<n>This gap enables the LLM's powerful parametric priors to override new contextual facts.<n>We propose Reason-KE++, an SFT+RL framework that instills process-level faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T15:49:01Z)
• Beyond Hallucinations: The Illusion of Understanding in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are becoming deeply embedded in human communication and decision-making.<n>They inherit the ambiguity, bias, and lack of direct access to truth inherent in language itself.<n>This paper argues that LLMs operationalize System 1 cognition at scale: fast, associative, and persuasive, but without reflection or falsification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T13:19:44Z)
• MIRAGE: Assessing Hallucination in Multimodal Reasoning Chains of MLLM [58.2298313720146]
  Multimodal hallucinations are multi-sourced and arise from diverse causes.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to adequately distinguish between perception-induced hallucinations and reasoning-induced hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T05:54:36Z)
• Do Larger Language Models Generalize Better? A Scaling Law for Implicit Reasoning at Pretraining Time [73.22651918134808]
  This work shows counterintuitive effects of model size scaling and provides new insights into the relationship between scaling and reasoning in language models (LMs)<n>We pretrain LMs from scratch on a synthetic implicit multihop reasoning environment designed to replicate the structure and distribution of real-world large-scale knowledge graphs.<n>We then assess the LMs' ability to complete the missing edges in the graph, which requires multi-hop reasoning that can be viewed as a simplification of implicit reasoning during real-world pretraining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T17:57:22Z)
• Do Large Language Models Exhibit Spontaneous Rational Deception? [0.913127392774573]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective at deceiving, when prompted to do so.<n>But under what conditions do they deceive spontaneously?<n>This study evaluates spontaneous deception produced by LLMs in a preregistered experimental protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T23:10:56Z)
• Delusions of Large Language Models [62.43923767408462]
  Large Language Models often generate factually incorrect but plausible outputs, known as hallucinations.<n>We identify a more insidious phenomenon, LLM delusion, defined as high belief hallucinations, incorrect outputs with abnormally high confidence, making them harder to detect and mitigate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T17:59:16Z)
• LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With This [1.3810901729134184]
  This work argues that hallucinations in language models are not just occasional errors but an inevitable feature of these systems. It is, therefore, impossible to eliminate them through architectural improvements, dataset enhancements, or fact-checking mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T16:01:58Z)
• Deceptive Semantic Shortcuts on Reasoning Chains: How Far Can Models Go without Hallucination? [73.454943870226]
  This work studies a specific type of hallucination induced by semantic associations. To quantify this phenomenon, we propose a novel probing method and benchmark called EureQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:27:36Z)
• Can Language Models Be Tricked by Language Illusions? Easier with Syntax, Harder with Semantics [7.759719313292493]
  We investigate LMs' more subtle judgments associated with "language illusions" We look at three illusions: the comparative illusion, the depth-charge illusion, and the negative polarity item (NPI) illusion. We show that LMs are limited both in their construal as cognitive models of human language processing and in their capacity to recognize nuanced but critical information in complicated language materials.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T16:44:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.