Skip to content
Preprint

Interpretable Humans, Alien LLMs: Expert Analysis of Latent Structures in Assessment Responses

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 57 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

By combining data-driven EFA with blind expert interpretation, this framework shows that LLMs frequently operate on statistically opaque mechanisms distinct from human reasoning.

Abstract

The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on human-designed assessments, implicitly assuming that AI and humans employ similar underlying cognitive constructs. Challenging this assumption, we investigate whether the latent factors governing LLM performance carry the same substantive, human-interpretable meaning as the cognitive constructs governing human learners. Using responses from humans and six LLMs across quantitative reasoning and chemistry assessments, we conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) separately for both groups. Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs) then blindly evaluated the resulting factor graphs to ascribe pedagogical meaning to the emerged constructs. SMEs successfully interpreted most of the human-derived factors. Conversely, they could not ascribe meaning to any LLM-derived factors in quantitative reasoning and interpreted only half of the LLM factors in chemistry. By combining data-driven EFA with blind expert interpretation, this framework shows that LLMs frequently operate on statistically opaque mechanisms distinct from human reasoning.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis

The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities. A common approach is to evaluate LLMs using assessment instruments originally designed to measure skills and competencies in humans, such as standardized exams, and to use p...

Alona Strugatski, Licol Zeinfeld, Giora Alexandron · 1 citation
Review Open access Jun 2025

From Prompts to Constructs: A Dual-Validity Framework for Large Language Model Research in Psychology.

This review argues that robust AI psychological research requires integrating two methodological traditions: psychometric validation of what a score means and causal inference standards for what the results warrant, developing a dual-validity framework in which evidentiary demands scale with scientific ambition.

Zhicheng Lin · 12 citations · ⚡1
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Measuring Human-Like Bias in LLMs? A Critique of Human-Derived Bias Constructs in LLM Evaluation

Researchers increasingly use human-derived bias constructs to study Large Language Models (LLMs), including social-cognitive constructs such as implicit bias and stereotype activation, and cognitive biases such as anchoring, framing effects, and confirmation bias. Such approaches offer alternatives to overt bias probes...

Antonela Tommasel, Markus Schedl · 0 citations

Assessing mentalization in humans and large language models

Different capacities for mentalization across LLMs are demonstrated, and cognitive computational modeling is highlighted as a formal method for assessing comparative intelligence across humans and machines.

Aamir Sohail, Xintong Zhong, Arkady Konovalov et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Do LLMs Understand Personality? Rethinking Persona Fidelity Evaluation through Structured Behavioral Inference

This work proposes PRISM (Persona Reasoning with Inverse SFL-based Modeling), a psycholinguistically grounded framework that reformulates persona fidelity evaluation as a structured inverse inference task, providing a more reliable framework for persona fidelity evaluation.

Meng-Fan Li, Ze-Sheng Wei, Xuan-Hua Shi et al. · 1 citation
#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments

A systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view is conducted, highlighting the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and huma...

Lin Chen, Yi-Tong Chen, Yong Li · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.