mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Stroke Lesions as a Rosetta Stone for Language Model Interpretability

arXiv 2602.04074 ↗First posted 3 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable capabilities, yet methods to verify which model components are truly necessary for language function remain limited. Current interpretability approaches rely on internal metrics and lack external validation. Here we present the Brain-LLM Unified Model (BLUM), a framework that leverages lesion-symptom mapping, the gold standard for establishing causal brain-behavior relationships for over a century, as an external reference structure for evaluating LLM perturbation effects. Using data from individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia (N = 410), we trained symptom-to-lesion models that predict brain damage location from behavioral error profiles, applied systematic perturbations to transformer layers, administered identical clinical assessments to perturbed LLMs and human patients, and projected LLM error profiles into human lesion space. LLM error profiles were sufficiently similar to human error profiles that predicted lesions corresponded to actual lesions in error-matched humans above chance in 67% of picture naming conditions (p < 10^{-23}) and 68.3% of sentence completion conditions (p < 10^{-61}), with semantic-dominant errors mapping onto ventral-stream lesion patterns and phonemic-dominant errors onto dorsal-stream patterns. These findings open a new methodological avenue for LLM interpretability in which clinical neuroscience provides external validation, establishing human lesion-symptom mapping as a reference framework for evaluating artificial language systems and motivating direct investigation of whether behavioral alignment reflects shared computational principles.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2026.

Builds on

7 of 49 references.

References · 7

  1. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
  2. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,973
  3. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
  4. 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 452
  5. 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
  6. 2020Probing the Probing Paradigm: Does Probing Accuracy Entail Task Relevance?cited by 144
  7. 2024Generative causal testing to bridge data-driven models and scientific theories in language neurosciencecited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.