Michael Zichert

Michael Zichert, Arno Simons

This article situates large language models (LLMs) within the longer history of computational approaches to concept analysis in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science (HPSS). We examine what LLMs add to existing methods, how they inherit longstanding problems, and review recent case studies that employ them. In the first part, we reconstruct computational conceptual history before LLMs by bringing together three strands of work: early digital methods in HPSS, distributional approaches from digital history and related research, and lexical semantic change detection. We provide an overview of the main challenges and opportunities, focusing on corpus construction, operationalization and modelling choices, and evaluation and interpretation. In the second part, we turn to the era of LLMs, starting with a short introduction to LLMs before reviewing LLM-based work on lexical semantic change detection and relevant case studies in HPSS. We then revisit the earlier methodological questions, showing how issues of corpus construction, model choice and training data, operationalization trade-offs, and evaluation and interpretation play out in LLM-based workflows.

Michael Zichert, Adrian Wüthrich

Virtual particles are peculiar objects. They figure prominently in much of theoretical and experimental research in elementary particle physics. But exactly what they are is far from obvious. In particular, to what extent they should be considered "real" remains a matter of controversy in philosophy of science. Also their origin and development has only recently come into focus of scholarship in the history of science. In this study, we propose using the intriguing case of virtual particles to discuss the efficacy of Semantic Change Detection (SCD) based on contextualized word embeddings from a domain-adapted BERT model in studying specific scientific concepts. We find that the SCD metrics align well with qualitative research insights in the history and philosophy of science, as well as with the results obtained from Dependency Parsing to determine the frequency and connotations of the term "virtual." Still, the metrics of SCD provide additional insights over and above the qualitative research and the Dependency Parsing. Among other things, the metrics suggest that the concept of the virtual particle became more stable after 1950 but at the same time also more polysemous.

Arno Simons, Michael Zichert, Adrian Wüthrich

This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) as research tools in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science (HPSS). LLMs are remarkably effective at processing unstructured text and inferring meaning from context, offering new affordances that challenge long-standing divides between computational and interpretive methods. This raises both opportunities and challenges for HPSS, which emphasizes interpretive methodologies and understands meaning as context-dependent, ambiguous, and historically situated. We argue that HPSS is uniquely positioned not only to benefit from LLMs' capabilities but also to interrogate their epistemic assumptions and infrastructural implications. To this end, we first offer a concise primer on LLM architectures and training paradigms tailored to non-technical readers. We frame LLMs not as neutral tools but as epistemic infrastructures that encode assumptions about meaning, context, and similarity, conditioned by their training data, architecture, and patterns of use. We then examine how computational techniques enhanced by LLMs, such as structuring data, detecting patterns, and modeling dynamic processes, can be applied to support interpretive research in HPSS. Our analysis compares full-context and generative models, outlines strategies for domain and task adaptation (e.g., continued pretraining, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation), and evaluates their respective strengths and limitations for interpretive inquiry in HPSS. We conclude with four lessons for integrating LLMs into HPSS: (1) model selection involves interpretive trade-offs; (2) LLM literacy is foundational; (3) HPSS must define its own benchmarks and corpora; and (4) LLMs should enhance, not replace, interpretive methods.