REVIEW 2 cited by
Do large language models solve verbal analogies like children do?
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
read the original abstract
Analogy-making lies at the heart of human cognition. Adults solve analogies such as \textit{Horse belongs to stable like chicken belongs to ...?} by mapping relations (\textit{kept in}) and answering \textit{chicken coop}. In contrast, children often use association, e.g., answering \textit{egg}. This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) solve verbal analogies in A:B::C:? form using associations, similar to what children do. We use verbal analogies extracted from an online adaptive learning environment, where 14,002 7-12 year-olds from the Netherlands solved 622 analogies in Dutch. The six tested Dutch monolingual and multilingual LLMs performed around the same level as children, with MGPT performing worst, around the 7-year-old level, and XLM-V and GPT-3 the best, slightly above the 11-year-old level. However, when we control for associative processes this picture changes and each model's performance level drops 1-2 years. Further experiments demonstrate that associative processes often underlie correctly solved analogies. We conclude that the LLMs we tested indeed tend to solve verbal analogies by association with C like children do.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Automatic Extraction of Metaphoric Analogies from Literary Texts: Task Formulation, Dataset Construction, and Evaluation
GPT-4 can extract the four concepts of a proportional metaphoric analogy from short literary texts with 77% frame-wise head-noun accuracy, but full quadruple accuracy is 61%.
-
Towards Learning to Reason: Comparing LLMs with Neuro-Symbolic on Arithmetic Relations in Abstract Reasoning
With oracle text attributes, GPT-4 and Llama-3 solve Raven matrices but their arithmetic-rule accuracy drops below 10% on larger grids and value ranges, while the neuro-symbolic ARLC model stays accurate.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.