Interpretable Humans, Alien LLMs: Expert Analysis of Latent Structures in Assessment Responses

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17810v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 14:08:25 GMT
• Title: Interpretable Humans, Alien LLMs: Expert Analysis of Latent Structures in Assessment Responses
• Abstract summary: The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on human-designed assessments.<n>We investigate whether the latent factors governing LLM performance carry the same substantive, human-interpretable meaning as the cognitive constructs governing human learners.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on human-designed assessments, implicitly assuming that AI and humans employ similar underlying cognitive constructs. Challenging this assumption, we investigate whether the latent factors governing LLM performance carry the same substantive, human-interpretable meaning as the cognitive constructs governing human learners. Using responses from humans and six LLMs across quantitative reasoning and chemistry assessments, we conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) separately for both groups. Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs) then blindly evaluated the resulting factor graphs to ascribe pedagogical meaning to the emerged constructs. SMEs successfully interpreted most of the human-derived factors. Conversely, they could not ascribe meaning to any LLM-derived factors in quantitative reasoning and interpreted only half of the LLM factors in chemistry. By combining data-driven EFA with blind expert interpretation, this framework shows that LLMs frequently operate on statistically opaque mechanisms distinct from human reasoning.

Related papers

• Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis [0.0]
  This study examines whether similarity in the latent structure of responses to an assessment holds for large language models (LLMs)<n>We find systematic differences between human and LLM factor structures, showing evidence that the analyzed assessments may not measure the same constructs for humans and LLMs.<n>These findings call into question the validity of evaluation practices that use educational assessments to make claims about AI capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T08:52:58Z)
• 11Plus-Bench: Demystifying Multimodal LLM Spatial Reasoning with Cognitive-Inspired Analysis [54.24689751375923]
  This work introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess the spatial reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art MLLMs.<n>Through experiments across 14 MLLMs and human evaluation, we find that current MLLMs exhibit early signs of spatial cognition.<n>These findings highlight both emerging capabilities and limitations in current MLLMs' spatial reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T17:22:34Z)
• How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Meaning in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs [13.822169295436177]
  We investigate how large language models (LLMs) process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies.<n>Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect.<n>These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T18:28:35Z)
• LLM-D12: A Dual-Dimensional Scale of Instrumental and Relational Dependencies on Large Language Models [0.24629531282150877]
  There is growing interest in understanding how people interact with large language models (LLMs)<n>We developed and validated a new 12-item questionnaire to measure LLM dependency, referred to as LLM-D12.<n>The scale was based on the authors' prior theoretical work, with items developed accordingly and responses collected from 526 participants in the UK.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T17:42:21Z)
• Leveraging Human Production-Interpretation Asymmetries to Test LLM Cognitive Plausibility [7.183662547358301]
  We examine whether large language models process language similarly to humans.<n>We find that some LLMs do quantitatively and qualitatively reflect human-like asymmetries between production and interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T23:25:42Z)
• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Is Self-knowledge and Action Consistent or Not: Investigating Large Language Model's Personality [11.660251022962141]
  We investigate the validity of conventional personality questionnaires in capturing the human-like personality traits of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our objective is to assess the congruence between the personality traits LLMs claim to possess and their demonstrated tendencies in real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T16:32:08Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)

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.