Research on mental state reasoning in language models (LMs) has the potential to inform theories of human social cognition—such as the theory that mental state reasoning emerges in part from language exposure—and our understanding of LMs themselves. Yet much published work on LMs relies on a relatively small sample of closed-source LMs, limiting our ability to rigorously test psychological theories and evaluate LM capacities. Here, we replicate and extend published work on the false belief task by assessing LM mental state reasoning behavior across 41 open-weight models (from distinct model families). We find sensitivity to implied knowledge states in 34% of the LMs tested; however, consistent with prior work, none fully "explain away" the effect in humans. Larger LMs show increased sensitivity and also exhibit higher psychometric predictive power. Finally, we use LM behavior to generate and test a novel hypothesis about human cognition: both humans and LMs show a bias towards attributing false beliefs when knowledge states are cued using a non-factive verb ("John thinks...") than when cued indirectly ("John looks in the..."). Unlike the primary effect of knowledge states, where human sensitivity exceeds that of LMs, the magnitude of the human knowledge cue effect falls squarely within the distribution of LM effect sizes—suggesting that distributional statistics of language can in principle account for the latter but not the former in humans. These results demonstrate the value of using larger samples of open-weight LMs to test theories of human cognition and evaluate LM capacities.

Lexical ambiguity—where a single wordform takes on distinct, context-dependent meanings–serves as a useful tool to compare across different language models’ (LMs’) ability to form distinct, contextualized representations of the same stimulus. Few studies have systematically compared LMs’ contextualized word embeddings for languages beyond English. Here, we evaluate semantic representations of Spanish ambiguous nouns in context in a suite of Spanish-language monolingual and multilingual BERT-based models. We develop a novel dataset of minimal-pair sentences evoking the same or different sense for a target ambiguous noun. In a pre-registered study, we collect contextualized human relatedness judgments for each sentence pair. We find that various BERT-based LMs’ contextualized semantic representations capture some variance in human judgments but fall short of the human benchmark. In exploratory work, we find that performance scales with model size. We also identify stereotyped trajectories of target noun disambiguation as a proportion of traversal through a given LM family’s architecture, which we partially replicate in English. We contribute (1) a dataset of controlled, Spanish sentence stimuli with human relatedness norms, and (2) to our evolving understanding of the impact that LM specification (architectures, training protocols) exerts on contextualized embeddings.

The relationship between language model tokenization and performance is an open area of research. Here, we investigate how different tokenization schemes impact number agreement in Spanish plurals. We find that morphologically-aligned tokenization performs similarly to other tokenization schemes, even when induced artificially for words that would not be tokenized that way during training. We then present exploratory analyses demonstrating that language model embeddings for different plural tokenizations have similar distributions along the embedding space axis that maximally distinguishes singular and plural nouns. Our results suggest that morphologically-aligned tokenization is a viable tokenization approach, and existing models already generalize some morphological patterns to new items. However, our results indicate that morphological tokenization is not strictly required for performance.