Reposted by Jennifer HuTom McCoy @rtommccoy.bsky.social · 01/09/2026🤖🧠NEW PAPER🧠🤖 (The result of an 8-year project!) LLMs seem very different from symbolic systems. Yet LLMs excel in symbolic domains (e.g., language/code/math). How do they do it? Our finding: LLM representations have implicit symbolic structure! Link in thread ⬇️ 1/n 432188 321
Reposted by Jennifer HuMinds, Machines, and Brains (MMB) @mmb-journal.bsky.social · 02/08/2026Hello world! 👋 We’re Minds, Machines, and Brains (MMB) 👤🤖🧠 a new open access journal from @mitpress.bsky.social exploring the principles of intelligence and cognition across natural and artificial minds. Submissions open this Fall! 🔗 direct.mit.edu/mmbdirect.mit.eduMinds, Machines, and Brains | MIT Press 223793 237
Reposted by Jennifer HuKyle Mahowald @kmahowald.bsky.social · 02/07/2026The full BBS treatment from me and @futrell.bsky.social on "How linguistics learned to stop worrying and love the LMs" is now out, with all the commentaries and our response. If you "Save PDF", it will give you the whole target article + commentary + response pdf: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...cambridge.orgHow linguistics learned to stop worrying and love the language models | Behavioral and Brain Sciences | Cambridge CoreHow linguistics learned to stop worrying and love the language models - Volume 49 2359 35
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 02/07/2026What's more nonsensical: smashing a pumpkin using a number, or growing flowers inside a sneeze? Our paper on graded inconceivability is out now in Cognition! Come for the cognitive science 🧠🔍, stay for the whimsy 🌼🧚! 🔗Journal link: bit.ly/gradedInconCog 1416 41
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 01/07/2026Sadly won't be at ACL in person, but check out our presentations below! 🌟 I'm giving a (remote) keynote at SCiL on 7/4! 🌟We also have a poster on probability x grammaticality, and a talk on pragmatics x Theory of Mind! Our lab is actively recruiting, so please reach out! Details at glintlab.org ✨ 1214 21
Reposted by Jennifer HuMike Frank @mcxfrank.bsky.social · 27/04/2026For a year and a half, @carorowland.bsky.social, @lehersingh.bsky.social, Marisa Casillas, Shanley Allen, and I have been meeting to discuss whether innateness is still a useful concept to think about in studying language acquisition. Here's our take: osf.io/preprints/ps... 66128 61
Reposted by Jennifer HuMichael Lepori @michael-lepori.bsky.social · 26/02/2026I'm excited to share that this paper was accepted at ICLR 2026! We show that language models encode one of the most basic ingredients of a world model: the ability to distinguish plausible from implausible states. Check out the paper for more details! See you in Rio! Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2507.12553 3317 31
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 12/02/2026I wrote a short article on AI Model Evaluation for the Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science 📕👇 Hope this is helpful for anyone who wants a super broad, beginner-friendly intro to the topic! Thanks @mcxfrank.bsky.social and @asifamajid.bsky.social for this amazing initiative! 05422 54
Reposted by Jennifer HuSam Gershman @gershbrain.bsky.social · 09/01/2026With some trepidation, I'm putting this out into the world: gershmanlab.com/textbook.html It's a textbook called Computational Foundations of Cognitive Neuroscience, which I wrote for my class. My hope is that this will be a living document, continuously improved as I get feedback. 16590237 590
Reposted by Jennifer HuMick Bonner @mickbonner.bsky.social · 12/12/2025Hopkins Cog Sci is hiring! We have two open faculty positions: one in vision, and one language. Please repost! 03134 34
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 11/11/2025Yeah exactly -- @kanishka.bsky.social in examples like yours above, if we assume that g=1 and those strings aren't likely to be ungrammatical realizations of some other messages, then diffs in p(string) will reflect diffs in p(m). Which is what we want, no? 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025This work was done with an amazing team: @wegotlieb.bsky.social, @siyuansong.bsky.social, @kmahowald.bsky.social, @rplevy.bsky.social Preprint (pre-TACL version): arxiv.org/abs/2510.16227 10/10 1111 11
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025Our work also raises new Qs. If LMs virtually always produce grammatical strings, then why is there so much overlap between the probs assigned to grammatical/ungrammatical strings? This connects to tensions btwn language generation/identification (e.g., openreview.net/forum?id=FGT...) 9/10 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025An offshoot of our analysis: if you use minimal pairs that are not tightly controlled, you risk underestimating the grammatical competence of models, due to differences in underlying message probabilities. 8/10 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025As mentioned above, Prediction #3 shows that recent criticism about the overlap in probabilities across gram/ungram strings should NOT be interpreted as a failure of probability to tell us about grammaticality. This overlap is to be expected if prob is influenced by factors other than gram. 7/10 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025We use our framework to derive 3 predictions, which we validate empirically: 1. Correlation btwn the prob of string probs within minimal pairs 2. Correlation btwn LMs’ and humans’ deltas within minimal pairs 3. Poor separation btwn prob of unpaired grammatical and ungrammatical strings 6/10 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025In other words, when messages aren’t controlled for, gram strings won't always be more probable than ungram strings. This phenomenon has previously been used to argue that probability is a bad tool for measuring grammatical knowledge -- but in fact, it follows directly from our framework! 5/10 140 4
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025Minimal pairs are pairs of strings with the same underlying m but different values of g. Good LMs have low P(g=0), so they prefer the grammatical string in the minimal pair. But for non-minimal string pairs with different underlying messages, differences in P(m) can overwhelm even good LMs. 4/10 230 3
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025Returning to first principles: In our framework, the probability of a string comes from two latent variables: m, the message to be conveyed; and g, whether the message is realized grammatically. Ungrammatical strings get probability mass when g=0: the message is not realized grammatically. 3/10 100 1
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025Here we develop and give evidence for a formal framework that reconciles these two observations. Our framework provides theoretical justification for the widespread practice of using *minimal pairs* to test what grammatical generalizations LMs have acquired. 2/10 110 1
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 10/11/2025New work to appear @ TACL! Language models (LMs) are remarkably good at generating novel well-formed sentences, leading to claims that they have mastered grammar. Yet they often assign higher probability to ungrammatical strings than to grammatical strings. How can both things be true? 🧵👇 29320 93
Reposted by Jennifer HuTomer Ullman @tomerullman.bsky.social · 06/11/2025It’s grad school application season, and I wanted to give some public advice. Caveats: -*-*-*-* > These are my opinions, based on my experiences, they are not secret tricks or guarantees > They are general guidelines, not meant to cover a host of idiosyncrasies and special cases 411761 117
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 04/11/2025Interested in doing a PhD at the intersection of human and machine cognition? ✨ I'm recruiting students for Fall 2026! ✨ Topics of interest include pragmatics, metacognition, reasoning, & interpretability (in humans and AI). Check out JHU's mentoring program (due 11/15) for help with your SoP 👇 02815 28
Reposted by Jennifer HuTomer Ullman @tomerullman.bsky.social · 14/10/2025New preprint! "Non-commitment in mental imagery is distinct from perceptual inattention, and supports hierarchical scene construction" (by Li, Hammond, & me) link: doi.org/10.31234/osf... -- the title's a bit of a mouthful, but the nice thing is that it's a pretty decent summary 56522 65
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 07/10/2025At #COLM2025 and would love to chat all things cogsci, LMs, & interpretability 🍁🥯 I'm also recruiting! 👉 I'm presenting at two workshops (PragLM, Visions) on Fri 👉 Also check out "Language Models Fail to Introspect About Their Knowledge of Language" (presented by @siyuansong.bsky.social Tue 11-1) 0256 25
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 26/08/2025Can AI models introspect? What does introspection even mean for AI? We revisit a recent proposal by Comșa & Shanahan, and provide new experiments + an alternate definition of introspection. Check out this new work w/ @siyuansong.bsky.social, @harveylederman.bsky.social, & @kmahowald.bsky.social 👇 1215 21
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 22/08/2025Due to popular demand, we are extending the CogInterp submission deadline again! 🗓️🥳 Submit by *8/27* (midnight AoE) 0102 10
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 14/08/2025🗓️ The submission deadline for CogInterp @ NeurIPS has officially been *extended* to 8/22 (AoE)! 👇 Looking forward to seeing your submissions! 040 4
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 28/07/2025Heading to CogSci this week! ✈️ Find me giving talks on: 💬 Prod-comp asymmetry in children and LMs (Thu 7/31) 💬 How people make sense of nonsense (Sat 8/2) 📣 Also, I’m recruiting grad students + postdocs for my new lab at Hopkins! 📣 If you’re interested in language / cognition / AI, let’s chat! 😄 1203 20
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 16/07/2025Join us at NeurIPS in San Diego this December for talks by experts in the field, including James McClelland, @cgpotts.bsky.social, @scychan.bsky.social, @ari-holtzman.bsky.social, @mtoneva.bsky.social, & @sydneylevine.bsky.social! 🗓️ Submit your 4-page paper (non-archival) by August 15! 4/4 0110 11
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 16/07/2025We're bringing together researchers in fields such as machine learning, psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience to discuss new empirical findings + theories which help us interpret high-level cognitive abilities in deep learning models. 3/4 140 4
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 16/07/2025Deep learning models (e.g. LLMs) show impressive abilities. But what generalizations have these models acquired? What algorithms underlie model behaviors? And how do these abilities develop? Cognitive science offers a rich body of theories and frameworks which can help answer these questions. 2/4 240 4
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 16/07/2025Excited to announce the first workshop on CogInterp: Interpreting Cognition in Deep Learning Models @ NeurIPS 2025! 📣 How can we interpret the algorithms and representations underlying complex behavior in deep learning models? 🌐 coginterp.github.io/neurips2025/ 1/4coginterp.github.ioHomeFirst Workshop on Interpreting Cognition in Deep Learning Models (NeurIPS 2025) 15819 58
Reposted by Jennifer HuRobert Hawkins @rdhawkins.bsky.social · 28/05/2025Happy to announce the first workshop on Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models — PragLM @ COLM 2025! 🎉 How do LLMs engage in pragmatic reasoning, and what core pragmatic capacities remain beyond their reach? 🌐 sites.google.com/berkeley.edu/praglm/ 📅 Submit by June 23rdsites.google.comPragLM @ COLM '25IMPORTANT DATES 13918 39
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Preprint link: arxiv.org/abs/2504.14107 A huge thank you to my amazing collaborators Michael Lepori (@michael-lepori.bsky.social) & Michael Franke (@meanwhileina.bsky.social)! (12/12)arxiv.orgSignatures of human-like processing in Transformer forward passesModern AI models are increasingly being used as theoretical tools to study human cognition. One dominant approach is to evaluate whether human-derived measures are predicted by a model's output: that ... 060 6
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Our work also suggests a new way of using AI models to study cognition: not just as a black box mapping stimuli to outputs, but potentially also as processing models. Excited about future work using mechanistic interpretability to make new, testable predictions about human cognition! (11/12) 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025From an AI perspective, our approach could be leveraged to better understand how certain inputs are easier or harder for models to process. This could help AI researchers design evaluations with better construct validity, or more efficient early-exiting methods to save test-time compute. (10/12) 130 3
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Our results suggest that model processing & human processing may be facilitated by similar properties of an input stimulus, and this similarity has emerged through general-purpose objectives like next-token prediction or image recognition. Why does this matter for AI/cogsci? 👇 (9/12) 130 3
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Moreover, across our experiments, larger models do not always show more human-like processing patterns. Interestingly, this seems to generalize prior findings that human reading times are not always predicted better by larger LMs. (8/12) 170 7
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025We then test whether measures of forward-pass dynamics (including competitor interference, & others) predict signatures of processing in humans. We find that dynamic measures improve prediction of human measures above static (final-layer) measures -- across models, domains, & modalities. (7/12) 140 4
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025First, we use simple mech interp tools to measure competitor interference, such as evidence for “two-stage processing” and the “time to decision”. We find that models indeed appear to initially favor a competing incorrect answer in the cases where we expect decision conflict in humans. (6/12) 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/20251. Do models show signs of competitor interference effects? 2. Do measures characterizing (a) competitor interference effects or (b) other aspects of processing difficulty in models predict human processing load? 3. How does model size affect the similarity between model vs human processing? (5/12) 120 2
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025One phenomenon in human processing is competitor interference: conflict btwn a salient (but incorrect) answer and a correct answer. We use this as a hypothesis-driven case study to look at the relationship btwn human/machine processing, before broadening our investigation. We explore 3 RQs👇 (4/12) 140 4
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Meanwhile, mechanistic interpretability is starting to reveal the “pipelines” that models use to perform high-level cognitive tasks. So we ask: Do models & humans use similar processing pipelines? (3/12) 130 3
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Many studies treat AI models as black boxes mapping inputs to outputs, and compare output quantities (eg logprobs) to human behavior (eg offline judgments, reading times). This is often theoretically motivated: eg, using LMs to test the role of prediction in reading, or probability & grammar. (2/12) 160 6
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 20/05/2025Excited to share a new preprint w/ @michael-lepori.bsky.social & Michael Franke! A dominant approach in AI/cogsci uses *outputs* from AI models (eg logprobs) to predict human behavior. But how does model *processing* (across layers in a forward pass) relate to human real-time processing? 👇 (1/12) 25415 54
Jennifer Hu @jennhu.bsky.social · 12/03/2025Check out our new work on introspection in LLMs! 🔍 TL;DR we find no evidence that LLMs have privileged access to their own knowledge. Beyond the study of LLM introspection, our findings inform an ongoing debate in linguistics research: prompting (eg grammaticality judgments) =/= prob measurement! 0497 49
Reposted by Jennifer HuTomer Ullman @tomerullman.bsky.social · 06/03/2025new preprint on Theory of Mind in LLMs, a topic I know a lot of people care about (I care. I'm part of people): "Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models" (by Hu* @jennhu.bsky.social , Sosa, and me) link: arxiv.org/pdf/2502.21098 49227 92
Reposted by Jennifer HuMike Frank @mcxfrank.bsky.social · 06/03/2025AI models are fascinating, impressive, and sometimes problematic. But what can they tell us about the human mind? In a new review paper, @noahdgoodman.bsky.social and I discuss how modern AI can be used for cognitive modeling: osf.io/preprints/ps... 26425 64