Comparing human and language models sentence processing difficulties on complex structures (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) that converse with humans are a reality, but do LLMs experience human-like processing difficulties? |
| Approach: | They systematically compare human and LLM sentence comprehension across seven challenging linguistic structures. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves near perfect accuracy on non-GP structures, but struggles on GP structures. |
Similar Papers
When the LM misunderstood the human chuckled: Analyzing garden path effects in humans and language models (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown human-like abilities in many language tasks, sparking interest in comparing LLMs’ and humans’ language processing. |
| Approach: | They propose to answer two questions: 1. What makes garden-path sentences hard for humans? 2. Do the same reasons make garden- path sentences hard? |
| Outcome: | The proposed models show that humans struggle with specific syntactic complexities, with some models showing high correlation with human comprehension. |
Extracting structure from an LLM - how to improve on surprisal-based models of Human Language Processing (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing computational models capture prediction and reanalysis using Large Language Models (LLMs) and a statistical measure known as ‘surprisal’. |
| Approach: | They propose to extract structural information from Large Language Models and a statistical measure known as ‘surprisal’ to integrate it with their learnt statistics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieved higher correlation with human reading times and better predicted the garden path effect and could distinguish between sentence types with different levels of difficulty. |
Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work uses large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language process tasks, but there are shortcomings in current LLMs. |
| Approach: | They examine the alignment between LLM evaluators and human annotators by comparing conventional and alignment tasks with different evaluation criteria. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models excel in general criteria, such as fluency, but face challenges with complex criteria, including numerical reasoning. |
Real or Robotic? Assessing Whether LLMs Accurately Simulate Qualities of Human Responses in Human-LLM Dialogue (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Jonathan Ivey, Shivani Kumar, Jiayu Liu, Hua Shen, Sushrita Rakshit, Rohan Raju, Haotian Zhang, Aparna Ananthasubramaniam, Junghwan Kim, Bowen Yi, Dustin Wright, Abraham Israeli, Anders Giovanni Møller, Lechen Zhang, David Jurgens
| Challenge: | Recent work has sought to use large language models to simulate human-human and human-LLM interactions. |
| Approach: | They use a large-scale dataset to generate a paired LLM-LLM and human-LLm dialogues from the WildChat dataset and quantify how well they align with their human counterparts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models perform similarly in simulating English, Chinese, and Russian dialogues. |
A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendations (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Sawsan Alqahtani, M Saiful Bari, Mizanur Rahman, Mohammad Abdullah Matin Khan, Haidar Khan, Israt Jahan, Amran Bhuiyan, Chee Wei Tan, Md Rizwan Parvez, Enamul Hoque, Shafiq Joty, Jimmy Huang
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant attention due to their capabilities in performing diverse tasks across domains. |
| Approach: | They review the primary challenges and limitations causing inconsistencies in evaluations . early models could generate coherent text but limited to simple tasks . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust. |
Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Like (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Language models (LMs) have been used in cognitive modeling and engineering studies to simulate human cognitive load during reading. |
| Approach: | They propose to constrain LMs' context access to improve their simulation of human reading behavior by incorporating syntactic biases into their context access. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves the simulation of human reading behavior by incorporating syntactic biases into their context access. |
Do LLMs Understand Dialogues? A Case Study on Dialogue Acts (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on many unseen tasks in a zero-shot setting. |
| Approach: | They propose to identify three key pre-tasks essential for accurate DA prediction: Turn Management, Communicative Function Identification, and Dialogue Structure Prediction. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model fails to outperform basic rule-based tasks on three key pre-tasks, and the results suggest that the model is flawed. |
Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Human evaluation is indispensable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models to evaluate unseen texts using the same instructions and samples . they also use LLMs to generate responses to questions that are used to conduct human evaluation . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can be used to evaluate texts in open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. |
LLMs meet Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Cognitive View on Large Language Model Evaluations (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation approaches for Large Language Models lack a structured approach that reflects the underlying cognitive abilities required for solving the tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a hierarchical approach to evaluation of Large Language Models that leverages Bloom’s Taxonomy to identify how well they cover the levels of Bloom’ s taxonomies. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation frameworks cover the Bloom’s Taxonomy, a hierarchical framework for categorizing cognitive skills, on the most widely used benchmarks. |
Human Alignment: How Much Do We Adapt to LLMs? (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a common part of our lives, yet few studies have examined how they influence our behavior. |
| Approach: | They propose a cooperative language game in which players aim to converge on a word and play a game in a group. |
| Outcome: | The proposed game shows that humans notice and adapt to differences regardless of whether they are aware they are interacting with an LLM. |