Uncovering the Fragility of Trustworthy LLMs through Chinese Textual Ambiguity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23121v1
• Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:50:19 GMT
• Title: Uncovering the Fragility of Trustworthy LLMs through Chinese Textual Ambiguity
• Authors: Xinwei Wu, Haojie Li, Hongyu Liu, Xinyu Ji, Ruohan Li, Yule Chen, Yigeng Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We study the trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs) when encountering ambiguous narrative text in Chinese.<n>We created a benchmark dataset by collecting and generating ambiguous sentences with context and their corresponding disambiguated pairs.<n>We discovered significant fragility in LLMs when handling ambiguity, revealing behavior that differs substantially from humans.
• Score: 16.065963688326242
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In this work, we study a critical research problem regarding the trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs): how LLMs behave when encountering ambiguous narrative text, with a particular focus on Chinese textual ambiguity. We created a benchmark dataset by collecting and generating ambiguous sentences with context and their corresponding disambiguated pairs, representing multiple possible interpretations. These annotated examples are systematically categorized into 3 main categories and 9 subcategories. Through experiments, we discovered significant fragility in LLMs when handling ambiguity, revealing behavior that differs substantially from humans. Specifically, LLMs cannot reliably distinguish ambiguous text from unambiguous text, show overconfidence in interpreting ambiguous text as having a single meaning rather than multiple meanings, and exhibit overthinking when attempting to understand the various possible meanings. Our findings highlight a fundamental limitation in current LLMs that has significant implications for their deployment in real-world applications where linguistic ambiguity is common, calling for improved approaches to handle uncertainty in language understanding. The dataset and code are publicly available at this GitHub repository: https://github.com/ictup/LLM-Chinese-Textual-Disambiguation.

Related papers

• Comparing LLM Text Annotation Skills: A Study on Human Rights Violations in Social Media Data [2.812898346527047]
  This study investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for zero-shot and few-shot annotation of social media posts in Russian and Ukrainian.<n>To evaluate the effectiveness of these models, their annotations are compared against a gold standard set of human double-annotated labels.<n>The study explores the unique patterns of errors and disagreements exhibited by each model, offering insights into their strengths, limitations, and cross-linguistic adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:10:47Z)
• QUDsim: Quantifying Discourse Similarities in LLM-Generated Text [70.22275200293964]
  We introduce an abstraction based on linguistic theories in Questions Under Discussion (QUD) and question semantics to help quantify differences in discourse progression.<n>We then use this framework to build $textbfQUDsim$, a similarity metric that can detect discursive parallels between documents.<n>Using QUDsim, we find that LLMs often reuse discourse structures (more so than humans) across samples, even when content differs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T23:46:09Z)
• Linguistic Blind Spots of Large Language Models [14.755831733659699]
  We study the performance of recent large language models (LLMs) on linguistic annotation tasks.<n>We find that recent LLMs show limited efficacy in addressing linguistic queries and often struggle with linguistically complex inputs.<n>Our results provide insights to inform future advancements in LLM design and development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T01:47:13Z)
• Who Relies More on World Knowledge and Bias for Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: Humans or LLMs? [2.3749120526936465]
  This study explores how recent large language models (LLMs) navigate relative clause attachment ambiguity in six typologically diverse languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T19:44:15Z)
• Disparities in LLM Reasoning Accuracy and Explanations: A Case Study on African American English [66.97110551643722]
  We investigate dialectal disparities in Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning tasks.<n>We find that LLMs produce less accurate responses and simpler reasoning chains and explanations for AAE inputs.<n>These findings highlight systematic differences in how LLMs process and reason about different language varieties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T05:15:34Z)
• Do LLMs Understand Ambiguity in Text? A Case Study in Open-world Question Answering [15.342415325821063]
  Ambiguity in natural language poses significant challenges to Large Language Models (LLMs) used for open-domain question answering. We compare off-the-shelf and few-shot LLM performance, focusing on measuring the impact of explicit disambiguation strategies. We demonstrate how simple, training-free, token-level disambiguation methods may be effectively used to improve LLM performance for ambiguous question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T10:27:26Z)
• Aligning Language Models to Explicitly Handle Ambiguity [22.078095273053506]
  We propose Alignment with Perceived Ambiguity (APA), a novel pipeline that aligns language models to deal with ambiguous queries. Experimental results on question-answering datasets demonstrate that APA empowers LLMs to explicitly detect and manage ambiguous queries. Our finding proves that APA excels beyond training with gold-standard labels, especially in out-of-distribution scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T07:59:53Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Self-Augmented In-Context Learning for Unsupervised Word Translation [23.495503962839337]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong word translation or bilingual lexicon induction (BLI) capabilities in few-shot setups. We propose self-augmented in-context learning (SAIL) for unsupervised BLI. Our method shows substantial gains over zero-shot prompting of LLMs on two established BLI benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T15:43:05Z)
• Towards Effective Disambiguation for Machine Translation with Large Language Models [65.80775710657672]
  We study the capabilities of large language models to translate "ambiguous sentences" Experiments show that our methods can match or outperform state-of-the-art systems such as DeepL and NLLB in four out of five language directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T22:22:52Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguity [136.8068419824318]
  Managing ambiguity is a key part of human language understanding. We characterize ambiguity in a sentence by its effect on entailment relations with another sentence. We show that a multilabel NLI model can flag political claims in the wild that are misleading due to ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T17:57:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.