Adding LLMs to the psycholinguistic norming toolbox: A practical guide to getting the most out of human ratings

Word-level psycholinguistic norms lend empirical support to theories of language processing. However, obtaining such human-based measures is not always feasible or straightforward. One promising approach is to augment human norming datasets by using Large Language Models (LLMs) to predict these characteristics directly, a practice that is rapidly gaining popularity in psycholinguistics and cognitive science. However, the novelty of this approach (and the relative inscrutability of LLMs) necessitates the adoption of rigorous methodologies that guide researchers through this process, present the range of possible approaches, and clarify limitations that are not immediately apparent, but may, in some cases, render the use of LLMs impractical. In this work, we present a comprehensive methodology for estimating word characteristics with LLMs, enriched with practical advice and lessons learned from our own experience. Our approach covers both the direct use of base LLMs and the fine-tuning of models, an alternative that can yield substantial performance gains in certain scenarios. A major emphasis in the guide is the validation of LLM-generated data with human "gold standard" norms. We also present a software framework that implements our methodology and supports both commercial and open-weight models. We illustrate the proposed approach with a case study on estimating word familiarity in English. Using base models, we achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.8 with human ratings, which increased to 0.9 when employing fine-tuned models. This methodology, framework, and set of best practices aim to serve as a reference for future research on leveraging LLMs for psycholinguistic and lexical studies.

The continued usefulness of vocabulary tests for evaluating large language models

In their seminal article on semantic vectors, Landauer and Dumain (1997) proposed testing the quality of AI language models with a challenging vocabulary test. We show that their Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) test remains informative for contemporary major language models, since none of the models was perfect and made errors on divergent items. The TOEFL test consists of target words with four alternatives to choose from. We further tested the models on a Yes/No test that requires distinguishing between existing words and made-up nonwords. The models performed significantly worse on the nonword items, in line with other observations that current major language models provide non-existent information. The situation was worse when we generalized the tests to Spanish. Here, most models gave meanings/translations for the majority of random letter sequences. On the plus side, the best models began to perform quite well, and they also pointed to nonwords that were unknown to the test participants but can be found in dictionaries.