Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals a significant performance gap in how large language models handle kinship reasoning when relations are defined by familiar vocabulary versus arbitrary nonce predicates, indicating that their relational competence is sensitive to linguistic presentation rather than being purely formal. The findings suggest that while explicit definitions provide the necessary logical structure, they cannot fully replicate the advantage conferred by pretrained linguistic associations, though prompt engineering can mitigate this disparity. For researchers in machine learning, this highlights the persistent influence of pretraining data on symbolic reasoning tasks and points toward modifiable biases in model behavior.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

The Concrete-Arbitrary Gap: Kinship Reasoning in LLMs Is Not Indifferent to Presentation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.39913v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We test whether large language models solve formally matched kinship problems equally well when relations are expressed in familiar vocabulary or by explicitly defined nonce predicates. Across 500 paired graphs, concrete accuracy exceeds arbitrary accuracy by 35.6 percentage points in local Qwen3.8-27B, 26.6 in Gemma 4 26B-A4B, 12.0 in Gemma 4 31B, and 5.4 in Qwen3.8-Max. All four paired gaps are statistically resolved. Reasoning budgets and prompt-language interventions can substantially reduce the difference, showing that it is modifiable rather than a fixed incapacity. The minimal conclusion is behavioral: on these tasks, the models' manifested relational competence is not indifferent to presentation. Explicit definitions provide the formal relations but do not make nonce predicates as usable as familiar vocabulary embedded in learned linguistic associations.

Abstract:We test whether large language models solve formally matched kinship problems equally well when relations are expressed in familiar vocabulary or by explicitly defined nonce predicates. Across 500 paired graphs, concrete accuracy exceeds arbitrary accuracy by 35.6 percentage points in local Qwen3.8-27B, 26.6 in Gemma 4 26B-A4B, 12.0 in Gemma 4 31B, and 5.4 in Qwen3.8-Max. All four paired gaps are statistically resolved. Reasoning budgets and prompt-language interventions can substantially reduce the difference, showing that it is modifiable rather than a fixed incapacity. The minimal conclusion is behavioral: on these tasks, the models' manifested relational competence is not indifferent to presentation. Explicit definitions provide the formal relations but do not make nonce predicates as usable as familiar vocabulary embedded in learned linguistic associations.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2609.39913 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.39913v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.39913 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 · 218 words

Related coverage