Xufeng Duan

Zhenguang G. Cai, Xufeng Duan, David A. Haslett et al.

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Vicuna have shown remarkable capacities in comprehending and producing language. However, their internal workings remain a black box, and it is unclear whether LLMs and chatbots can develop humanlike characteristics in language use. Cognitive scientists have devised many experiments that probe, and have made great progress in explaining, how people comprehend and produce language. We subjected ChatGPT and Vicuna to 12 of these experiments ranging from sounds to dialogue, preregistered and with 1000 runs (i.e., iterations) per experiment. ChatGPT and Vicuna replicated the human pattern of language use in 10 and 7 out of the 12 experiments, respectively. The models associated unfamiliar words with different meanings depending on their forms, continued to access recently encountered meanings of ambiguous words, reused recent sentence structures, attributed causality as a function of verb semantics, and accessed different meanings and retrieved different words depending on an interlocutor's identity. In addition, ChatGPT, but not Vicuna, nonliterally interpreted implausible sentences that were likely to have been corrupted by noise, drew reasonable inferences, and overlooked semantic fallacies in a sentence. Finally, unlike humans, neither model preferred using shorter words to convey less informative content, nor did they use context to resolve syntactic ambiguities. We discuss how these convergences and divergences may result from the transformer architecture. Overall, these experiments demonstrate that LLMs such as ChatGPT (and Vicuna to a lesser extent) are humanlike in many aspects of human language processing.

Xuemei Tang, Xufeng Duan, Zhenguang G. Cai

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a potential solution to automate the complex processes involved in writing literature reviews, such as literature collection, organization, and summarization. However, it is yet unclear how good LLMs are at automating comprehensive and reliable literature reviews. This study introduces a framework to automatically evaluate the performance of LLMs in three key tasks of literature writing: reference generation, literature summary, and literature review composition. We introduce multidimensional evaluation metrics that assess the hallucination rates in generated references and measure the semantic coverage and factual consistency of the literature summaries and compositions against human-written counterparts. The experimental results reveal that even the most advanced models still generate hallucinated references, despite recent progress. Moreover, we observe that the performance of different models varies across disciplines when it comes to writing literature reviews. These findings highlight the need for further research and development to improve the reliability of LLMs in automating academic literature reviews.

Hanlin Wu, Xufeng Duan, Zhenguang Cai

Voice-based AI development faces unique challenges in processing both linguistic and paralinguistic information. This study compares how large audio-language models (LALMs) and humans integrate speaker characteristics during speech comprehension, asking whether LALMs process speaker-contextualized language in ways that parallel human cognitive mechanisms. We compared two LALMs' (Qwen2-Audio and Ultravox 0.5) processing patterns with human EEG responses. Using surprisal and entropy metrics from the models, we analyzed their sensitivity to speaker-content incongruency across social stereotype violations (e.g., a man claiming to regularly get manicures) and biological knowledge violations (e.g., a man claiming to be pregnant). Results revealed that Qwen2-Audio exhibited increased surprisal for speaker-incongruent content and its surprisal values significantly predicted human N400 responses, while Ultravox 0.5 showed limited sensitivity to speaker characteristics. Importantly, neither model replicated the human-like processing distinction between social violations (eliciting N400 effects) and biological violations (eliciting P600 effects). These findings reveal both the potential and limitations of current LALMs in processing speaker-contextualized language, and suggest differences in social-linguistic processing mechanisms between humans and LALMs.

Yumeng Lin, Xufeng Duan, David Haslett et al.

Large language models have achieved impressive progress in multilingual translation, yet they continue to face challenges with certain language pairs-particularly those with limited training data or significant linguistic divergence from English. This study systematically investigates how training data, language proximity, and language family affect information loss in multilingual translation. We evaluate two large language models, GPT-4 and Llama 2, by performing round-trip translations. Translation quality was assessed using BLEU scores and BERT similarity metrics. Our results reveal a robust interaction between training data size and language distance: while abundant training data can mitigate the effects of linguistic divergence, languages structurally closer to English consistently yield higher translation quality in low-resource conditions. Among various distance metrics, orthographic, phylogenetic, syntactic, and geographical distances emerge as strong predictors of translation performance. Language family also exerts an independent influence. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the linguistic constraints shaping multilingual translation in large language models, emphasizing that translation quality is shaped not only by data volume but also by structural and typological relationships between languages.

Xufeng Duan, Zhaoqian Yao, Yunhao Zhang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have been found to develop surprising internal specializations: Individual neurons, attention heads, and circuits become selectively sensitive to syntactic structure, reflecting patterns observed in the human brain. While this specialization is well-documented, how it emerges during training and what influences its development remains largely unknown. In this work, we tap into the black box of specialization by tracking its formation over time. By quantifying internal syntactic consistency across minimal pairs from various syntactic phenomena, we identify a clear developmental trajectory: Syntactic sensitivity emerges gradually, concentrates in specific layers, and exhibits a 'critical period' of rapid internal specialization. This process is consistent across architectures and initialization parameters (e.g., random seeds), and is influenced by model scale and training data. We therefore reveal not only where syntax arises in LLMs but also how some models internalize it during training. To support future research, we will release the code, models, and training checkpoints upon acceptance.