How Unlikely Is "Unlikely"? Assessing Verbal Probability Perception Across Large Language Models

Large language models increasingly produce and interpret verbal probability expressions, yet whether these expressions carry consistent meaning across models (or match human perceptions of uncertainty) remains unknown. We present a systematic cross-model evaluation using a word-to-number mapping task grounded in established human benchmarks. Eleven uncertainty expressions were presented to 19 models under two conditions, forced single-number response and explanation elicitation, alongside a novel bidirectional roundtrip test of internal consistency. LLMs track the human benchmark with surprising fidelity: word ordering is preserved, three anchor points are recovered, and ``possible'' shows the highest variance and cross-model disagreement of any expression tested, consistent with its documented bimodal interpretation in humans. However, models show a systematic upward bias for negative expressions such as ``unlikely'' and ``improbable.'' Explanation elicitation reduces within-model variance while increasing between-model divergence, stabilizing individual models at the cost of inter-model consensus, and the roundtrip experiment reveals clear stratification, with frontier models maintaining coherent bidirectional representations. LLMs thus reproduce the structure of human verbal probability cognition, including its biases, while diverging systematically at the negative end---with implications for any setting where humans and models exchange probabilistic language.

Human-AI Perceptual Alignment by Playing Hues and Cues

Evaluating the perceptual alignment between Contrastive Vision-Language Models (CVLMs) and humans is typically constrained by traditional benchmarks that overlook fine-grained semantic and cultural nuances. In this work, we propose a novel evaluation framework that leverages the gamified, discrete color space of the board game Hues and Cues. By mapping the board's 480 color cells to the CIE xy chromaticity diagram, we calculate empirical perceptual distances across a carefully curated 100-word vocabulary spanning seven semantic categories. To properly contextualize model performance, we establish an empirical lower bound of expected error-the Human Consistency baseline-calculated via Leave-One-Out (LOO) cross-validation on a dense dataset of color associations collected from 325 human observers through a custom digital interface. We evaluate 162 models across multiple architectural families and pre-training datasets to assess their semantic color grounding. Our results demonstrate that while CVLMs successfully replicate human cognitive biases, such as idealized memory colors for concrete physical referents (e.g., food and plants), they systematically diverge from the human baseline in abstract, subjective, and pop-culture domains. We identify two distinct failure modes in severely misaligned concepts: semantic misclassification and a systematic uncertainty collapse into a default blue coordinate. Furthermore, we reveal that highly curated pre-training datasets are significantly more effective than massive, uncurated corpora in mitigating these severe misalignments. Ultimately, this work highlights that despite their broad categorization capabilities, current CVLMs still fail to capture the nuanced, localized consensus of human color memory, emphasizing the value of gamified tasks in exposing underlying model biases. The data and code are publicly available to test other metrics.