Psycholinguistic Word Features: a New Approach for the Evaluation of LLMs Alignment with Humans

TL;DR

This paper proposes a novel evaluation method for large language models by comparing their outputs to human ratings on psycholinguistic word features, revealing strengths and limitations in sensory and emotional word understanding.

Contribution

It introduces the use of psycholinguistic datasets to assess LLMs' alignment with human perceptions of word features, highlighting areas for improvement.

Findings

Better alignment with Glasgow norms than Lancaster norms

LLMs show limitations in sensory association understanding

Evaluation reveals potential gaps in embodied cognition in LLMs

Abstract

The evaluation of LLMs has so far focused primarily on how well they can perform different tasks such as reasoning, question-answering, paraphrasing, or translating. For most of these tasks, performance can be measured with objective metrics, such as the number of correct answers. However, other language features are not easily quantified. For example, arousal, concreteness, or gender associated with a given word, as well as the extent to which we experience words with senses and relate them to a specific sense. Those features have been studied for many years by psycholinguistics, conducting large-scale experiments with humans to produce ratings for thousands of words. This opens an opportunity to evaluate how well LLMs align with human ratings on these word features, taking advantage of existing studies that cover many different language features in a large number of words. In this paper, we evaluate the alignment of a representative group of LLMs with human ratings on two psycholinguistic datasets: the Glasgow and Lancaster norms. These datasets cover thirteen features over thousands of words. The results show that alignment is \textcolor{black}{generally} better in the Glasgow norms evaluated (arousal, valence, dominance, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, and gender) than on the Lancaster norms evaluated (introceptive, gustatory, olfactory, haptic, auditory, and visual). This suggests a potential limitation of current LLMs in aligning with human sensory associations for words, which may be due to their lack of embodied cognition present in humans and illustrates the usefulness of evaluating LLMs with psycholinguistic datasets.