Recovering Lesion Parameters from Aphasic Picture Naming Error Profiles in Large Language Models

Interpretability methods for large language models (LLMs) describe internal state but do not directly test whether that state is causally sufficient to produce the observed behavior. In earlier work, we lesioned LLMs to produce error profiles in picture naming, a central task for assessing aphasia, and found that specific lesions produced errors resembling those of individual stroke survivors. Here we ask the inverse question: given an error profile, can the lesion parameters that produced it be recovered, and what does this inverse problem reveal about transformer computation? Lesions in LLaVA-Vicuna 13B were parameterized by layer index, modification percentage, and noise sigma across 4,840 configurations, and error profiles were characterized by a seven-category clinical taxonomy (correct, semantic, unrelated, formal, mixed, neologism, no-response). We trained a multi-task neural network to map error profiles back to perturbation parameters. The problem admitted a partial solution: across 10 independently trained inverse models, modification percentage and noise sigma were recoverable, whereas layer index was recoverable only within a neighborhood. In counterfactual validation, a fresh model instance perturbed with the recovered parameters reproduced the target behavior in 81.4% of cases. This dissociation between low layer recovery and high counterfactual fidelity is consistent with functional redundancy across transformer layers, a property not captured by standard interpretability methods. As an out-of-distribution test, we applied the trained model to picture-naming error profiles from 278 stroke survivors; recovered parameters were syndrome-discriminative, most strongly for perturbation intensity, indicating generalization beyond the training distribution. Counterfactual validation provides a general framework for LLM interpretability claims beyond inverse mapping.

Lesioned Multimodal Language Models Reproduce Aphasic Picture-Naming Patterns

Aphasia following stroke commonly produces systematic naming errors with characteristic profiles, but whether general-purpose language models not designed for clinical simulation can reproduce these patterns remains untested. We investigated (1) whether lesions or controlled perturbations to a multimodal language model can reproduce different types of errors in picture naming, and (2) whether the framework can reproduce the complete error profile of individual persons with aphasia (PWAs). Using LLaVA 1.6, we evaluated perturbation configurations that varied the layer, proportion, and amount of noise applied to model units. We examined 278 PWAs on the Philadelphia Naming Test, classifying responses into seven categories using a validated neural classifier. Six of seven response categories (correct, semantic, mixed, unrelated, neologism, no response errors) emerged at clinically-comparable proportions across distinct parameter space regions, with formal paraphasia being the exception. Searching the perturbation space revealed configurations that reproduced the individual error profile in at least six of seven categories for 97.8% of PWAs and in all seven categories for 79.5% of PWAs. Monte Carlo baselines confirmed that this matching reflects joint inter-category structure rather than marginal overlap. These results establish a quantitative framework for reproducing individual aphasic error patterns in picture naming. They suggest the potential for language models to serve as digital twins of individuals with post-stroke aphasia.

The Two Word Test: A Semantic Benchmark for Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities recently, including passing advanced professional exams and demanding benchmark tests. This performance has led many to suggest that they are close to achieving humanlike or 'true' understanding of language, and even Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Here, we provide a new open-source benchmark that can assess semantic abilities of LLMs using two-word phrases using a task that can be performed relatively easily by humans without advanced training. Combining multiple words into a single concept is a fundamental aspect of human language and intelligence. The test requires meaningfulness judgments of 1768 noun-noun combinations that have been rated as meaningful (e.g., baby boy) or not meaningful (e.g., goat sky). by 150 human raters. We provide versions of the task that probe meaningfulness ratings on a 0-4 scale as well as binary judgments. We conducted a series of experiments using the TWT on GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard, with both versions. Results demonstrated that, compared to humans, all models perform poorly at rating meaningfulness of these phrases. GPT-3.5 and Bard are also unable to make binary discriminations between sensible and nonsense phrases as making sense. GPT-4 makes a substantial improvement in binary discrimination of combinatorial phrases but is still significantly worse than human performance. The TWT can be used to understand the limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs, and potentially improve them. The test also reminds us that caution is warranted in attributing 'true understanding' or AGI to LLMs. TWT is available at: https://github.com/NickRiccardi/two-word-test