As Easy as Rocket Science: Assessing the Ability of Large Language Models to Interpret Negation in Figurative Language

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18922v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 10:50:05 GMT
• Title: As Easy as Rocket Science: Assessing the Ability of Large Language Models to Interpret Negation in Figurative Language
• Abstract summary: Figurative language and negation are two areas that challenge current language models.<n>We develop a set of new annotations to an existing dataset of figurative language.<n>We test a range of language models on the dataset.
• Score: 3.1306343282298084
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Figurative language and negation are two areas that challenge current language models, however, both are widely used throughout written and spoken language. Large language models (LLMs) are also widely used in everyday contexts where they cannot necessarily be tuned for a specific dataset. It is therefore essential to understand the ability of LLMs to correctly interpret text that includes both negation and figurative language. To investigate this, we develop a set of new annotations to an existing dataset of figurative language, and test a range of language models on the dataset. We find that the combination of negation and figurativeness can present a particular challenge, and that performance overall and across different negation types is particularly dependent on the prompt style used.

Related papers

• NLP Datasets for Idiom and Figurative Language Tasks [0.674975004449773]
  idiomatic and figurative language form a large portion of colloquial speech and writing.<n>With social media, this informal language has become more easily observable to people and trainers of large language models (LLMs) alike.<n>Finetuning approaches are proving to be optimal, but better and larger datasets can help narrow this gap even further.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T13:28:05Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models on Multiword Expressions in Multilingual and Code-Switched Contexts [2.519319150166215]
  This study evaluates how state-of-the-art language models process the ambiguity of potentially idiomatic multiword expressions.<n>We find that large language models, despite their strengths, struggle with nuanced language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:39:28Z)
• Negation: A Pink Elephant in the Large Language Models' Room? [2.8078480738404]
  Negations are key to determining sentence meaning, making them essential for logical reasoning.<n>Despite their importance, negations pose a substantial challenge for large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T13:04:41Z)
• Unnatural Languages Are Not Bugs but Features for LLMs [92.8332103170009]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been observed to process non-human-readable text sequences, such as jailbreak prompts.<n>We present a systematic investigation challenging this perception, demonstrating that unnatural languages contain latent features usable by models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T12:10:17Z)
• Infusing Prompts with Syntax and Semantics [0.0]
  We analyze the effect of directly infusing various kinds of syntactic and semantic information into large language models.<n>We show that linguistic analysis can significantly boost language models, to the point that we have surpassed previous best systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-08T23:49:38Z)
• Language Embeddings Sometimes Contain Typological Generalizations [0.0]
  We train neural models for a range of natural language processing tasks on a massively multilingual dataset of Bible translations in 1295 languages. The learned language representations are then compared to existing typological databases as well as to a novel set of quantitative syntactic and morphological features. We conclude that some generalizations are surprisingly close to traditional features from linguistic typology, but that most models, as well as those of previous work, do not appear to have made linguistically meaningful generalizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-19T15:09:59Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)
• Testing the Ability of Language Models to Interpret Figurative Language [69.59943454934799]
  Figurative and metaphorical language are commonplace in discourse. It remains an open question to what extent modern language models can interpret nonliteral phrases. We introduce Fig-QA, a Winograd-style nonliteral language understanding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T23:42:22Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)
• AM2iCo: Evaluating Word Meaning in Context across Low-ResourceLanguages with Adversarial Examples [51.048234591165155]
  We present AM2iCo, Adversarial and Multilingual Meaning in Context. It aims to faithfully assess the ability of state-of-the-art (SotA) representation models to understand the identity of word meaning in cross-lingual contexts. Results reveal that current SotA pretrained encoders substantially lag behind human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T20:23:45Z)
• Comparison of Interactive Knowledge Base Spelling Correction Models for Low-Resource Languages [81.90356787324481]
  Spelling normalization for low resource languages is a challenging task because the patterns are hard to predict. This work shows a comparison of a neural model and character language models with varying amounts on target language data. Our usage scenario is interactive correction with nearly zero amounts of training examples, improving models as more data is collected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-20T17:31:07Z)

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.