Rutvik H. Desai

Nicholas Riccardi, Rutvik H. Desai

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities recently, including passing advanced professional exams and demanding benchmark tests. This performance has led many to suggest that they are close to achieving humanlike or 'true' understanding of language, and even Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Here, we provide a new open-source benchmark that can assess semantic abilities of LLMs using two-word phrases using a task that can be performed relatively easily by humans without advanced training. Combining multiple words into a single concept is a fundamental aspect of human language and intelligence. The test requires meaningfulness judgments of 1768 noun-noun combinations that have been rated as meaningful (e.g., baby boy) or not meaningful (e.g., goat sky). by 150 human raters. We provide versions of the task that probe meaningfulness ratings on a 0-4 scale as well as binary judgments. We conducted a series of experiments using the TWT on GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard, with both versions. Results demonstrated that, compared to humans, all models perform poorly at rating meaningfulness of these phrases. GPT-3.5 and Bard are also unable to make binary discriminations between sensible and nonsense phrases as making sense. GPT-4 makes a substantial improvement in binary discrimination of combinatorial phrases but is still significantly worse than human performance. The TWT can be used to understand the limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs, and potentially improve them. The test also reminds us that caution is warranted in attributing 'true understanding' or AGI to LLMs. TWT is available at: https://github.com/NickRiccardi/two-word-test

Julius Fridriksson, Roger D. Newman-Norlund, Saeed Ahmadi et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable capabilities, yet methods to verify which model components are truly necessary for language function remain limited. Current interpretability approaches rely on internal metrics and lack external validation. Here we present the Brain-LLM Unified Model (BLUM), a framework that leverages lesion-symptom mapping, the gold standard for establishing causal brain-behavior relationships for over a century, as an external reference structure for evaluating LLM perturbation effects. Using data from individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia (N = 410), we trained symptom-to-lesion models that predict brain damage location from behavioral error profiles, applied systematic perturbations to transformer layers, administered identical clinical assessments to perturbed LLMs and human patients, and projected LLM error profiles into human lesion space. LLM error profiles were sufficiently similar to human error profiles that predicted lesions corresponded to actual lesions in error-matched humans above chance in 67% of picture naming conditions (p < 10^{-23}) and 68.3% of sentence completion conditions (p < 10^{-61}), with semantic-dominant errors mapping onto ventral-stream lesion patterns and phonemic-dominant errors onto dorsal-stream patterns. These findings open a new methodological avenue for LLM interpretability in which clinical neuroscience provides external validation, establishing human lesion-symptom mapping as a reference framework for evaluating artificial language systems and motivating direct investigation of whether behavioral alignment reflects shared computational principles.