Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals a critical gap between human linguistic intuition and current Large Language Model architectures regarding sublexical processing of pseudowords. The findings indicate that LLMs rely heavily on lexical familiarity rather than the statistical character-level cues humans naturally employ, suggesting limitations in how these models generalize to novel word forms. These insights are vital for researchers aiming to align model internal representations more closely with human cognitive mechanisms.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Pseudowords as probes: Large Language Models show little of the sublexical sensitivity that governs human pseudoword processing

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.07936v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systematicity, the probabilistic mapping of form to meaning, permeates language at all levels, and sublexical cues have been shown to govern human pseudoword processing. Yet whether LLMs exhibit comparable sensitivity to these cues remains unclear. We tested five LLMs on two Italian two-alternative forced-choice pseudoword experiments and compared their responses with a human behavioural baseline. LLMs aligned more reliably with humans when real-word options provided a lexical familiarity cue than in the pseudoword-only condition, where they fell substantially below fastText, a character-n-gram model. In addition, the sublexical cosine-similarity cue that reliably drove human--fastText agreement did not consistently transfer to human--LLM alignment, and reasoning-token expenditure bore no consistent relation to human processing difficulty. These findings suggest that LLMs do not necessarily share the sublexical cues that govern human pseudoword processing; we discuss tokenization and training-data coverage as candidate explanations.

Abstract:Systematicity, the probabilistic mapping of form to meaning, permeates language at all levels, and sublexical cues have been shown to govern human pseudoword processing. Yet whether LLMs exhibit comparable sensitivity to these cues remains unclear. We tested five LLMs on two Italian two-alternative forced-choice pseudoword experiments and compared their responses with a human behavioural baseline. LLMs aligned more reliably with humans when real-word options provided a lexical familiarity cue than in the pseudoword-only condition, where they fell substantially below fastText, a character-n-gram model. In addition, the sublexical cosine-similarity cue that reliably drove human--fastText agreement did not consistently transfer to human--LLM alignment, and reasoning-token expenditure bore no consistent relation to human processing difficulty. These findings suggest that LLMs do not necessarily share the sublexical cues that govern human pseudoword processing; we discuss tokenization and training-data coverage as candidate explanations.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.07936 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.07936v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07936 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 233 words

Related coverage