aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the persistent limitations of large language models in handling negation, specifically analyzing how behavioral and representational systematicity affect performance during in-context learning. The study reveals that while LLMs can partially recognize negation cues through demonstrations, extracting robust function vectors for determining logical scope remains significantly more challenging than simple cue extraction. These findings highlight critical gaps in current model architectures regarding fundamental linguistic logic, offering essential insights for researchers aiming to improve reasoning capabilities without relying solely on scaling laws.
Revisiting the Systematicity in Negation in the Era of In-Context Learning
arXiv:2606.16867v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Understanding the meaning of negated sentences remains one of the challenges for language models, even in the era of large language models (LLMs). We analyze systematicity regarding LLM understanding of negation from two perspectives: behavioral systematicity and representational systematicity. For behavioral systematicity, we confirm that through demonstrations and in-context learning, LLMs can recognize negation expressions and scope within sentences to some extent, but they fail to achieve perfect performance. In particular, the difficulty of the negation scope recognition for models varies depending on the output format. For representational systematicity, we analyze the extent to which function vectors can be robustly constructed from in-context examples for tasks that are essential to understanding negation. The experiments suggest that while function vectors can be composed for negation cue extraction tasks, extracting function vectors for recognizing scope is more challenging.
Abstract:Understanding the meaning of negated sentences remains one of the challenges for language models, even in the era of large language models (LLMs). We analyze systematicity regarding LLM understanding of negation from two perspectives: behavioral systematicity and representational systematicity. For behavioral systematicity, we confirm that through demonstrations and in-context learning, LLMs can recognize negation expressions and scope within sentences to some extent, but they fail to achieve perfect performance. In particular, the difficulty of the negation scope recognition for models varies depending on the output format. For representational systematicity, we analyze the extent to which function vectors can be robustly constructed from in-context examples for tasks that are essential to understanding negation. The experiments suggest that while function vectors can be composed for negation cue extraction tasks, extracting function vectors for recognizing scope is more challenging.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.16867 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.16867v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.16867 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 231 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
Von Mises-Fisher Mixture Model with Dynamic Shrinkage for Realistic Test-Time Transduction
arXiv · Jul 20, 2026
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026