# Complementary Advantages of ChatGPTs and Human Readers in Reasoning: Evidence from English Text Reading Comprehension

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10344 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10344/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 17 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Nov 2023.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12712/) (2023)
- [A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04023/) (2023)
- [Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.06476/) (2023)
- [How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07597/) (2023)
- [KagNet: Knowledge-Aware Graph Networks for Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02151/) (2019)
- [A Survey on Causal Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.02770/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Ability of ChatGPT and GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03439/) (2023)
- [Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10145/) (2023)
- [Event2Mind: Commonsense Inference on Events, Intents, and Reactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.06939/) (2018)
- [Recent Advances in Natural Language Inference: A Survey of Benchmarks, Resources, and Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01172/) (2019)
- [How to Make Causal Inferences Using Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.02163/) (2018)
- [Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02312/) (2023)
- [CICERO: A Dataset for Contextualized Commonsense Inference in Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.13926/) (2022)
- [Do Language Models Perform Generalizable Commonsense Inference?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11533/) (2021)
- [Chinese Intermediate English Learners outdid ChatGPT in deep cohesion: Evidence from English narrative writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11812/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Dr.Academy: A Benchmark for Evaluating Questioning Capability in Education for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10947/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models on the GMAT: Implications for the Future of Business Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02985/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

ChatGPT has shown its great power in text processing, including its reasoning ability from text reading. However, there has not been any direct comparison between human readers and ChatGPT in reasoning ability related to text reading. This study was undertaken to investigate how ChatGPTs (i.e., ChatGPT and ChatGPT Plus) and Chinese senior school students as ESL learners exhibited their reasoning ability from English narrative texts. Additionally, we compared the two ChatGPTs in the reasoning performances when commands were updated elaborately. The whole study was composed of three reasoning tests: Test 1 for commonsense inference, Test 2 for emotional inference, and Test 3 for causal inference. The results showed that in Test 1, the students outdid the two ChatGPT versions in local-culture-related inferences but performed worse than the chatbots in daily-life inferences. In Test 2, ChatGPT Plus excelled whereas ChatGPT lagged behind in accuracy. In association with both accuracy and frequency of correct responses, the students were inferior to the two chatbots. Compared with ChatGPTs' better performance in positive emotions, the students showed their superiority in inferring negative emotions. In Test 3, the students demonstrated better logical analysis, outdoing both chatbots. In updating command condition, ChatGPT Plus displayed good causal reasoning ability while ChatGPT kept unchanged. Our study reveals that human readers and ChatGPTs have their respective advantages and disadvantages in drawing inferences from text reading comprehension, unlocking a complementary relationship in text-based reasoning.