mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Who Relies More on World Knowledge and Bias for Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: Humans or LLMs?

arXiv 2503.10838 ↗First posted 13 Mar 2025cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This study explores how recent large language models (LLMs) navigate relative clause attachment {ambiguity} and use world knowledge biases for disambiguation in six typologically diverse languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Spanish. We describe the process of creating a novel dataset -- MultiWho -- for fine-grained evaluation of relative clause attachment preferences in ambiguous and unambiguous contexts. Our experiments with three LLMs indicate that, contrary to humans, LLMs consistently exhibit a preference for local attachment, displaying limited responsiveness to syntactic variations or language-specific attachment patterns. Although LLMs performed well in unambiguous cases, they rigidly prioritized world knowledge biases, lacking the flexibility of human language processing. These findings highlight the need for more diverse, pragmatically nuanced multilingual training to improve LLMs' handling of complex structures and human-like comprehension.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Mar 2025.

Builds on

21 of 57 references.

References · 21

  1. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
  4. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
  5. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  6. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
  7. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 541
  8. 2024On LLMs-Driven Synthetic Data Generation, Curation, and Evaluation: A Surveycited by 244
  9. 2023Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey designcited by 180
  10. 2023LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Modelscited by 71
  11. 2021CLiMP: A Benchmark for Chinese Language Model Evaluationcited by 46
  12. 2023Do large language models resemble humans in language use?cited by 34
9 more
  1. 2022Tackling Ambiguity with Images: Improved Multimodal Machine Translation and Contrastive Evaluationcited by 26
  2. 2022Language model acceptability judgements are not always robust to contextcited by 22
  3. 2020Recurrent Neural Network Language Models Always Learn English-Like Relative Clause Attachmentcited by 18
  4. 2025Enhancing Intent Understanding for Ambiguous prompt: A Human-Machine Co-Adaption Strategycited by 16
  5. 2022SLING: Sino Linguistic Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 15
  6. 2023AmbiCoref: Evaluating Human and Model Sensitivity to Ambiguous Coreferencecited by 12
  7. 2024AmbigNLG: Addressing Task Ambiguity in Instruction for NLGcited by 10
  8. 2024Multimodal Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution Using Linear Semantic Transfer and Mixed-Modality Ensemblescited by 4
  9. 2023Structural Ambiguity and its Disambiguation in Language Model Based Parsers: the Case of Dutch Clause Relativizationcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.