Production and Perception in LLMs: A Token Probability Approach
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The asymmetry between language production and perception has been well-documented in psycholinguistics. Whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a functionally analogous distinction remains an open question, particularly given that LLMs rely on the same underlying mechanism (next-token prediction) for both input and output processing. In this exploratory study, we operationalize the production-perception distinction through direct token probability measurements rather than metalinguistic prompting. Using the base Llama-3.1-8B model, we generated poems under a production prompt and re-scored the same tokens under both rephrased production prompts and perception-oriented prompts. Across an extended experiment with four production and three perception prompts, production-perception distances consistently and substantially exceeded production-production distances, with non-overlapping ranges across conditions and an overall average ratio of approximately 1.8. Near-ceiling correlations in the production-production control confirm that the effect is specific to communicative framing rather than prompt surface variation, and we show the effect replicates across five open-weight models (Llama-3.1-8B, EuroLLM-9B, gemma-2-9b-it, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct), spanning both base and instruction-tuned variants. Temporal analysis revealed that the perception prompt exerts its strongest influence at the beginning of the sequence, with divergence decaying as generated context accumulates, though the specific shape of this decay varies across prompt pairs. These findings suggest that prompt framing alone induces a production-perception distinction in LLM probability distributions, even within a decoder-only architecture.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.
Builds on
8 of 23 references.
References · 8
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
- 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 138
- 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 113
- 2022Context Limitations Make Neural Language Models More Human-Likecited by 34
- 2025Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internallycited by 29
- 2024Learning and communication pressures in neural networks: Lessons from emergent communicationcited by 8
- 2025Benchmark of stylistic variation in LLM-generated textscited by 7
- 2025Leveraging Human Production-Interpretation Asymmetries to Test LLM Cognitive Plausibilitycited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.