Presupposition and Reasoning in Conditionals: A Theory-Based Study of Humans and LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18352v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 13:08:20 GMT
• Title: Presupposition and Reasoning in Conditionals: A Theory-Based Study of Humans and LLMs
• Abstract summary: We compare human judgments and LLM predictions on a normed dataset of conditional sentences.<n>Results show that humans integrate probabilistic and pragmatic cues in their judgment.<n>We observe models that best match human ratings often lack coherent pragmatic reasoning.
• Score: 1.0599607477285324
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Presupposition projection in conditionals is central to theories of meaning and pragmatics, yet it remains largely unevaluated in large language models. We address this gap through a parallel behavioral study comparing human judgments and LLM predictions on a normed dataset of conditional sentences that controls the relation between the antecedent and the projected presupposition. We collect likelihood ratings from 120 participants and four LLMs under matched contextual conditions. Results show that humans integrate probabilistic and pragmatic cues in their judgment, whereas LLMs show variable alignment with human patterns. Using a linguistically motivated checklist within an LLM-as-a-Judge framework, we further evaluate model reasoning. We observe models that best match human ratings often lack coherent pragmatic reasoning, while models with stronger reasoning produce less human-like judgments. These findings suggest that LLMs' performance on such tasks may result from surface pattern matching rather than pragmatic competence. Our findings highlight the importance of benchmarks grounded in linguistic theory for comparing humans and models.

Related papers

• To Words and Beyond: Probing Large Language Models for Sentence-Level Psycholinguistic Norms of Memorability and Reading Times [4.5166266531313966]
  Large Language Models produce estimates of psycholinguistic norms that correlate with human judgments.<n>We extend this approach to the previously unstudied features of sentence memorability and reading times.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T16:10:27Z)
• Humans and LLMs Diverge on Probabilistic Inferences [25.525228660836024]
  We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants.<n>We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset.<n>Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T23:00:41Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Leveraging Human Production-Interpretation Asymmetries to Test LLM Cognitive Plausibility [7.183662547358301]
  We examine whether large language models process language similarly to humans.<n>We find that some LLMs do quantitatively and qualitatively reflect human-like asymmetries between production and interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T23:25:42Z)
• Hypothesis-Driven Theory-of-Mind Reasoning for Large Language Models [76.6028674686018]
  We introduce thought-tracing, an inference-time reasoning algorithm to trace the mental states of agents.<n>Our algorithm is modeled after the Bayesian theory-of-mind framework.<n>We evaluate thought-tracing on diverse theory-of-mind benchmarks, demonstrating significant performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:08:50Z)
• Evaluating the Correctness of Inference Patterns Used by LLMs for Judgment [53.17596274334017]
  We evaluate the correctness of the detailed inference patterns of an LLM behind its seemingly correct outputs.<n>Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the inference patterns used by the LLM for the legal judgment may represent misleading or irrelevant logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T08:33:39Z)
• Bayesian Statistical Modeling with Predictors from LLMs [5.5711773076846365]
  State of the art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on a variety of benchmark tasks. This raises questions about the human-likeness of LLM-derived information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T11:33:30Z)
• A Theory of Response Sampling in LLMs: Part Descriptive and Part Prescriptive [53.08398658452411]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making.<n>We show that this sampling behavior resembles that of human decision-making.<n>We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Models [34.068368860882586]
  We present a novel framework for generating evaluations with Large Language Models (LLMs) by populating causal templates. We create a new social reasoning benchmark (BigToM) for LLMs which consists of 25 controls and 5,000 model-written evaluations. We find that human participants rate the quality of our benchmark higher than previous crowd-sourced evaluations and comparable to expert-written evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T16:42:15Z)
• 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)
• ThinkSum: Probabilistic reasoning over sets using large language models [18.123895485602244]
  We propose a two-stage probabilistic inference paradigm, ThinkSum, which reasons over sets of objects or facts in a structured manner. We demonstrate the possibilities and advantages of ThinkSum on the BIG-bench suite of LLM evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T00:34:01Z)

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.