Vijay Marupudi

Kalit Inani, Keshav Kabra, Vijay Marupudi et al.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have brought them closer to matching human cognition across a variety of tasks. How well do these models align with human performance in detecting and mapping analogies? Prior research has shown that LLMs can extract similarities from analogy problems but lack robust human-like reasoning. Building on Webb, Holyoak, and Lu (2023), the current study focused on a story-based analogical mapping task and conducted a fine-grained evaluation of LLM reasoning abilities compared to human performance. First, it explored the semantic representation of analogies in LLMs, using sentence embeddings to assess whether they capture the similarity between the source and target texts of an analogy, and the dissimilarity between the source and distractor texts. Second, it investigated the effectiveness of explicitly prompting LLMs to explain analogies. Throughout, we examine whether LLMs exhibit similar performance profiles to those observed in humans by evaluating their reasoning at the level of individual analogies, and not just at the level of overall accuracy (as prior studies have done). Our experiments include evaluating the impact of model size (8B vs. 70B parameters) and performance variation across state-of-the-art model architectures such as GPT-4 and LLaMA3. This work advances our understanding of the analogical reasoning abilities of LLMs and their potential as models of human reasoning.

Raj Sanjay Shah, Vijay Marupudi, Reba Koenen et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) do not differentially represent numbers, which are pervasive in text. In contrast, neuroscience research has identified distinct neural representations for numbers and words. In this work, we investigate how well popular LLMs capture the magnitudes of numbers (e.g., that $4 < 5$) from a behavioral lens. Prior research on the representational capabilities of LLMs evaluates whether they show human-level performance, for instance, high overall accuracy on standard benchmarks. Here, we ask a different question, one inspired by cognitive science: How closely do the number representations of LLMscorrespond to those of human language users, who typically demonstrate the distance, size, and ratio effects? We depend on a linking hypothesis to map the similarities among the model embeddings of number words and digits to human response times. The results reveal surprisingly human-like representations across language models of different architectures, despite the absence of the neural circuitry that directly supports these representations in the human brain. This research shows the utility of understanding LLMs using behavioral benchmarks and points the way to future work on the number representations of LLMs and their cognitive plausibility.