Representational Similarity Alignment of Figurative Language in Humans and Large Language Models

Large language models often produce judgments that resemble human responses, but it remains unclear whether they internally capture linguistic nuances such as conventional versus idiomatic meaning. A layer-wise representational analysis was conducted on two equal-sized pre-trained models, Llama-3.2-1B and Gemma-3-1B-PT, to examine whether and where these models differentiate linguistic traits from input. The analysis combined layer-wise probing with geometric distance measures, using the top embedding dimensions ranked by principal component loadings for each layer. The results show that even with equal capacity, models organize linguistic information in fundamentally different ways, suggesting the need to analyze internal representational geometry, examining not just behavioral outputs but semantic space alignment when evaluating how closely human and model language interpretation correspond.

Comparing large language models can reveal shared representational structure and systematic differences between them. However, aggregate similarity measures can obscure how agreement varies across geometric scales and which linguistic properties support it. We introduce two complementary methods to resolve where models agree and what supports that agreement. Standard representational similarity analysis (RSA) summarizes similarity across all stimulus pairs, potentially obscuring differences in alignment between nearby and distant inputs. Neighborhood-Weighted RSA (NW-RSA) addresses this limitation by weighting stimulus pairs according to their proximity in representational space, placing alignment from local neighborhoods to global geometry on a common scale. Counterfactual RSA (CF-RSA) tests which linguistic properties support alignment by comparing intact representations in one model with representations under controlled linguistic perturbations in another. Across diverse language models, we find strong agreement in coarse representational geometry but substantial divergence in local neighborhoods. Alignment is observed both across broadly sampled natural text and within linguistic equivalence classes that preserve particular aspects of meaning or structure. Counterfactual analyses reveal selective sensitivity: changes to logical scope reduce alignment substantially more than the tested changes to hierarchical syntax, event roles, or discourse structure. Alignment also decreases when sentence structure or lexical meaning is disrupted in word lists and jabberwocky sentences, suggesting that the regularities of natural language support stronger convergence. These findings refine claims of representational universality by showing that strong overall similarity need not imply agreement in how models represent finer linguistic distinctions.

While factual correctness and task-performance have been in focus of Large Language Model (LLM) research for a long time, the fundamental question of how human-like generated texts are on a linguistic level has been underexplored. From a corpus-linguistic perspective, language production is inherently context-dependent, with distinct communicative contexts giving rise to differences in frequencies and co-occurrence patterns of linguistic features. A text failing to adhere to these patterns can be content-wise correct, but still be unfavorable to human readers. In this work, we propose a context-aware evaluation framework in which human-likeness is assessed using a two-sample problem between the linguistic feature distribution of a human reference corpus for a given register and a corresponding LLM-generated corpus. We implement this framework using the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and the 67 lexico-grammatical features introduced by Biber, which are commonly applied in corpus linguistics. In our experiments, we compare seven instruction-tuned, open-source models across five English-language datasets spanning distinct registers against a human baseline. While across all tested setups, LLMs deviate from the human baseline, which models are closest to human language depends on the register and is not dictated by model size.