Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Who Relies More on World Knowledge and Bias for Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: Humans or LLMs?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.10838 v2 pith:RN62WODF submitted 2025-03-13 cs.CL

Who Relies More on World Knowledge and Bias for Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: Humans or LLMs?

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsattachmentknowledgeworldambiguitybiasesclausediverse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This study explores how recent large language models (LLMs) navigate relative clause attachment {ambiguity} and use world knowledge biases for disambiguation in six typologically diverse languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Spanish. We describe the process of creating a novel dataset -- MultiWho -- for fine-grained evaluation of relative clause attachment preferences in ambiguous and unambiguous contexts. Our experiments with three LLMs indicate that, contrary to humans, LLMs consistently exhibit a preference for local attachment, displaying limited responsiveness to syntactic variations or language-specific attachment patterns. Although LLMs performed well in unambiguous cases, they rigidly prioritized world knowledge biases, lacking the flexibility of human language processing. These findings highlight the need for more diverse, pragmatically nuanced multilingual training to improve LLMs' handling of complex structures and human-like comprehension.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.