The study examines whether the latent factors that explain large language model (LLM) performance correspond to human‑interpretable cognitive constructs. Using exploratory factor analysis on responses from humans and six LLMs in quantitative reasoning and chemistry, subject‑matter experts could interpret most human‑derived factors but struggled to ascribe meaning to LLM‑derived factors, especially in quantitative reasoning and only partially in chemistry. The results suggest that LLMs often rely on statistically opaque mechanisms distinct from human reasoning.
arXiv:2608. 15630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities.
arXiv:2609.36515v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A common assumption in language model development is that cognitive abilities are organized around a general, domain-free intelligence factor, like f...
arXiv:2607. 06940v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in linguistic tasks underscores an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation of their response quality.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) possess intrinsic value systems and how to quantify and align them. By projecting responses from 106 LLMs and 95,000 human survey profiles into a shared sociological space, the authors confirm that LLMs do have values, though these values form a concentrated, idealized core rather than mirroring human diversity. They introduce the Prior-Environment-Cognition (PEC) framework to mathematically define value expression and propose an adaptive Alignment Prescription that identifies minimal interventions—ranging from prompts to targeted parameter updates—to steer LLM values efficiently without harming general performance.
The paper investigates whether reasoning representations—explanations for large language model outputs—aid humans in evaluating those outputs. A controlled human study tested six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, measuring structural understanding, error detection, and trust calibration. Results revealed a mismatch: participants favored planning- and decomposition-based representations, yet simpler chain-of-thought traces better supported verification, trust, and interpretability, while preferred formats increased calibration risks.
arXiv:2604. 27540v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scientific reasoning rarely stops at what is directly observable; it often requires uncovering hidden structure from data.
arXiv:2606. 10254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in \emph{solving} high-school mathematics, their ability to \emph{evaluate} the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined.
arXiv:2606. 01243v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Latent reasoning enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform multi-step inference within continuous hidden states, offering efficiency gains over explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT).
arXiv:2602. 07075v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current chemical large language models (LLMs) predominantly rely on explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) to solve complex reasoning problems.
arXiv:2608.10503v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, accurately evaluating their latent values and biases is critical. T...
arXiv:2606. 12422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices.
arXiv:2604. 04902v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Latent reasoning models (LRMs) have attracted significant research interest due to their low inference cost (relative to explicit reasoning models) and theoretical ability to explore multiple reasoning paths in parallel.