LLM and Human Modes of Representation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21616v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:20:55 GMT
• Title: LLM and Human Modes of Representation
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans process information and represent it.<n>I consider some recent research that has addressed both issues in two informational domains.<n>LLMs are, for the most part, less efficient than humans in learning and generalisation for reasoning tasks.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Much work on the cognitive foundations of AI has focussed on comparisons between the ways in which Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans process information and represent it. One aspect of this comparison involves determining the extent to which LLMs can achieve or surpass human performance on a variety of cognitively interesting tasks. A second explores points of convergence and divergence between LLM and human systems for processing information. Here, I consider some recent research that has addressed both issues in two informational domains. The first is the representation of linguistic knowledge. The second is real world reasoning and planning. While LLMs frequently achieve impressive levels of performance and fluency on linguistic applications, they tend to handle linguistic content in ways that are distinct from human processing. They are also, for the most part, less efficient than humans in learning and generalisation for reasoning tasks.

Related papers

• On the Thinking-Language Modeling Gap in Large Language Models [68.83670974539108]
  We show that there is a significant gap between the modeling of languages and thoughts.<n>We propose a new prompt technique termed Language-of-Thoughts (LoT) to demonstrate and alleviate this gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T09:31:52Z)
• Human-Aligned Bench: Fine-Grained Assessment of Reasoning Ability in MLLMs vs. Humans [9.315735862658244]
  We propose Human-Aligned Bench, a benchmark for alignment of multimodal reasoning with human performance.<n>We collected 9,794 multimodal questions that solely rely on contextual reasoning, including bilingual (Chinese and English) multimodal questions and pure text-based questions.<n>Extensive experiments on the Human-Aligned Bench reveal notable differences between the performance of current MLLMs in multimodal reasoning and human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T11:41:19Z)
• Disparities in LLM Reasoning Accuracy and Explanations: A Case Study on African American English [66.97110551643722]
  We investigate dialectal disparities in Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning tasks.<n>We find that LLMs produce less accurate responses and simpler reasoning chains and explanations for AAE inputs.<n>These findings highlight systematic differences in how LLMs process and reason about different language varieties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T05:15:34Z)
• 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)
• Non-literal Understanding of Number Words by Language Models [33.24263583093367]
  Humans naturally interpret numbers non-literally, combining context, world knowledge, and speaker intent.<n>We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) interpret numbers similarly, focusing on hyperbole and pragmatic halo effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T07:03:00Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• No Such Thing as a General Learner: Language models and their dual optimization [3.2228025627337864]
  We argue that neither humans nor LLMs are general learners, in a variety of senses. We argue that the performance of LLMs, whether similar or dissimilar to that of humans, does not weigh easily on important debates about the importance of human cognitive biases for language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T17:01:42Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Do Large Language Models Mirror Cognitive Language Processing? [43.68923267228057]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities in text comprehension and logical reasoning.<n>Brain cognitive processing signals are typically utilized to study human language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T03:38:20Z)
• 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)
• Spoken Language Intelligence of Large Language Models for Language Learning [3.1964044595140217]
  We focus on evaluating the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in the realm of education.<n>We introduce a new multiple-choice question dataset to evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in the aforementioned scenarios.<n>We also investigate the influence of various prompting techniques such as zero- and few-shot method.<n>We find that models of different sizes have good understanding of concepts in phonetics, phonology, and second language acquisition, but show limitations in reasoning for real-world problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T12:47:41Z)

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.