Semantic memory retrieval can be conceptualized as navigation through conceptual space. We compared semantic search dynamics between humans and three large language models (GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, Claude-Sonnet-4.5) using verbal fluency data. By applying trajectory-based NLP metrics to the items generated by 82 human participants and LLM output across eight temperature settings, we quantified three complementary dimensions: entropy (step size predictability), distance to next (successive semantic steps), and distance to centroid (global dispersion). Humans exhibited higher entropy, larger semantic steps and broader dispersion than all LLMs, indicating more variable and exploratory search. Temperature tuning produced only partial alignments, as individual metrics matched between humans and LLMs at specific settings, but no configuration reproduced the complete human profile (in all dimensions). These findings suggest that human semantic search implements a distinctive balance between local exploitation and global exploration that current model architectures fail to reproduce.
Humans effortlessly go beyond literal meanings: If you mow the lawn, I will give you fifty dollars, is typically understood as implying that the speaker will pay only if the lawn is mowed, whereas If you are hungry, there is pizza in the oven implies that pizza is available regardless of the hearers hunger. Large Language Models - LLMs - show human-like performance on many tasks, yet it remains unclear whether they reason like humans. To address this, we conducted a population-matching experiment assessing how twentyfive LLMs compute conditional inferences across four languages, compared to an equal number of humans per language. We find that humans enrich logical reasoning through pragmatic inferences across languages. Model behavior is more variable. Some LLMs perfectly follow the truth-table of conditionals but they ignore pragmatic inferences, while others deviate from the truth-table, adhering to a single interpretation across the board, thus reflecting accurate rule-based processing but not human-like reasoning. Overall, LLMs are accurate semantic operators, but fail to capture the pragmatic enrichments characteristic of human reasoning. Crucially, LLM accuracy is neither predicted nor boosted by open vs. closed status, training orientation, or architecture type, suggesting that pragmatic reasoning is still an emerging ability in the cognitive toolkit of artificial systems.
Paolo Morosi, Nikoleta Pantelidou, Fritz Günther +2
Calculating semantic textual similarity is a foundational task in natural language processing. Current large language models (LLMs) based methods typically rely on extracting last-layer hidden states with fixed dimensions to compute similarity for every text pairs. We argue that this paradigm is suffer from two limitations: (i) The last hidden layer encodes more general knowledge rather than just semantic knowledge, making it suboptimal for semantic similarity computation; (ii) The hidden layer dimensions of LLMs are generally very large, which introduces some redundancy and noise for representing semantics. In this work, we propose DySem, a novel training-free framework that investigates more semantic-related internal components of LLMs via multilingual consensus, and shifts away from static representation spaces in favor of dynamic, sample-specific semantic dimensions by constructing text-dependent joint semantic set and computes similarity over this shared dimensional subset. Extensive experiments across various LLMs show that our method consistently outperforms recent baselines while maintaining lower dimensions for similarity calculation. The code is released at https://github.com/szu-tera/DySem.
Search-augmented language models can use external evidence to compensate for limitations in parametric knowledge, but search is not uniformly beneficial: models may call search for questions they can already answer, or rely on noisy evidence when correction, clarification, or abstention would be more appropriate. We formulate this as an instance-level search-routing problem: deciding whether search is needed to improve task success relative to a no-search execution. To derive supervision, we compare no-search and forced-search outcomes for the same question and construct an oracle over NO SEARCH, SEARCH, and UNSOLVED based on task-specific success. Using this oracle as both an evaluation criterion and a learning signal, we train search-routing policies with supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization, improving routing macro-F1 on oracle-eligible examples from 0.7082 to 0.8235 for Gemma E2B and from 0.7053 to 0.8365 for Qwen3.5-4B. Further analysis shows that the learned policies reduce model-specific routing failures: Gemma primarily learns no-search restraint, while Qwen further reduces missed search; residual UNSOLVED cases reveal heterogeneous bottlenecks involving model capacity, retrieval budget, evidence use, and policy behavior.