The Grounding Gap: How LLMs Anchor the Meaning of Abstract Concepts Differently from Humans

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08837v1
• Date: Sat, 09 May 2026 09:41:12 GMT
• Title: The Grounding Gap: How LLMs Anchor the Meaning of Abstract Concepts Differently from Humans
• Abstract summary: We study whether large language models (LLMs) ground abstract concepts in a similar way to humans.<n>Across models and experiments, we find a consistent pattern: when compared to humans, models rely too heavily on word associations.
• Score: 8.661178002652731
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Abstract concepts - justice, theory, availability - have no single perceivable referent; in the human brain, their meaning emerges from a web of experiences, affect, and social context. Do large language models (LLMs) ground abstract concepts in a similar way? We study this by replicating property-generation experiments from cognitive science on 21 frontier and open-weight LLMs. Across models and experiments, we find a consistent pattern: when compared to humans, models rely too heavily on word associations, and underproduce properties tied to emotion and internal states. This yields a large and consistent grounding gap: no model exceeds a Pearson correlation r=0.37 with human responses, compared to a human-to-human ceiling above r=0.9. To better interpret this gap, we also replicate a rating experiment on grounding categories and find that here LLMs align more closely with human judgment, and alignment improves as models get larger. We then use sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to inspect whether this information is also reflected in the models' internal features, and we do identify features connected to grounding dimensions such as "sensorimotor" and "social". These findings suggest that current LLMs can recover grounding dimensions when explicitly queried, but do not recruit them in a human-like way when words are generated freely.

Related papers

• Analyzing and Correcting Benevolence Bias in Large Language Models [25.94213078450494]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as stand-ins for human respondents.<n>Here we identify and measure benevolence bias, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions.<n>We find that the bias is a stable model property, not a quirk of any one system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-26T08:37:58Z)
• Your Language Model Secretly Contains Personality Subnetworks [31.480534845874473]
  We show that large language models already contain persona-specializedworks in their parameter space.<n>Our method is entirely training-free and relies solely on the language model's existing parameter space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T20:03:28Z)
• Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) [90.45301024940329]
  Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content.<n>We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries.<n>We present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T03:16:21Z)
• Bridging the behavior-neural gap: A multimodal AI reveals the brain's geometry of emotion more accurately than human self-reports [18.336392633341493]
  We show that large-scale similarity judgments can more faithfully capture the brain's affective geometry.<n>Our findings provide compelling evidence that MLLMs can autonomously develop rich, neurally-aligned affective representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T05:22:33Z)
• If an LLM Were a Character, Would It Know Its Own Story? Evaluating Lifelong Learning in LLMs [55.8331366739144]
  We introduce LIFESTATE-BENCH, a benchmark designed to assess lifelong learning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our fact checking evaluation probes models' self-awareness, episodic memory retrieval, and relationship tracking, across both parametric and non-parametric approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T16:50:57Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• Exploring Spatial Schema Intuitions in Large Language and Vision Models [8.944921398608063]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) effectively capture implicit human intuitions about building blocks of language. Surprisingly, correlations between model outputs and human responses emerge, revealing adaptability without a tangible connection to embodied experiences. This research contributes to a nuanced understanding of the interplay between language, spatial experiences, and computations made by large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T19:25:50Z)
• Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
  We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing.<n>We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense.<n>Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)

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.