Language Models Can Resolve Reference Compositionally, But It's Not Their Native Strength: The Case of the Personal Relation Task
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866910272506036224 |
|---|---|
| author | Evelo, Bart Fowlie, Meaghan Paperno, Denis |
| author_facet | Evelo, Bart Fowlie, Meaghan Paperno, Denis |
| contents | Do neural models, such as Large Language Models, genuinely acquire compositional abilities for interpretation of natural language? When we talk about semantic interpretation, we can distinguish two complementary aspects: establishing what an expression refers to in the world (which we call the Extensional task) and representing its sense in a structured way (which we call the Intensional task). We evaluate LLMs and humans on both tasks in the setting of the Personal Relation Task (Paperno 2022) in which, given a universe of people and their relationships with each other, one is asked to interpret a noun phrase such as "Amber's parent's friend". Here, for the Intensional task, the answer is the formula "friend(parent(amber))", and for the Extensional task, the person. We find that humans and LLMs show opposite strengths: humans perform better on Extensional than Intensional tasks, and LLMs vice versa. Our methodology brings greater nuance to the understanding of compositional abilities in modern machine learning models. Our results support the notion that the lack of referential grounding in LLM training is a crucial missing component in mimicking human-like language understanding. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_31480 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Language Models Can Resolve Reference Compositionally, But It's Not Their Native Strength: The Case of the Personal Relation Task Evelo, Bart Fowlie, Meaghan Paperno, Denis Computation and Language I.2.7 Do neural models, such as Large Language Models, genuinely acquire compositional abilities for interpretation of natural language? When we talk about semantic interpretation, we can distinguish two complementary aspects: establishing what an expression refers to in the world (which we call the Extensional task) and representing its sense in a structured way (which we call the Intensional task). We evaluate LLMs and humans on both tasks in the setting of the Personal Relation Task (Paperno 2022) in which, given a universe of people and their relationships with each other, one is asked to interpret a noun phrase such as "Amber's parent's friend". Here, for the Intensional task, the answer is the formula "friend(parent(amber))", and for the Extensional task, the person. We find that humans and LLMs show opposite strengths: humans perform better on Extensional than Intensional tasks, and LLMs vice versa. Our methodology brings greater nuance to the understanding of compositional abilities in modern machine learning models. Our results support the notion that the lack of referential grounding in LLM training is a crucial missing component in mimicking human-like language understanding. |
| title | Language Models Can Resolve Reference Compositionally, But It's Not Their Native Strength: The Case of the Personal Relation Task |
| topic | Computation and Language I.2.7 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31480 |