跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1190 · 记录 #1

CogEvolve: A Multimodal Benchmark for Evaluating Relational Reasoning in Semantic Extension

来源日期(仅到月份) 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:56
ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Human cognition excels at extending knowledge through analogy, where word meanings evolve along structured pathways from concrete prototypes to abstract senses via metaphor and metonymy. Do Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize this generative logic, or merely mimic statistical patterns? To investigate this, we introduce CogEvolve, a cognitive linguistic benchmark designed to test these evolutionary pathways across textual and visual modalities. Our evaluation reveals a distinct cognitive profile: models function as “Super-Associators” expert at static recognition yet fail at causal reasoning. In text, they exhibit a Frequency-Primacy Conflation, confusing statistical prevalence with cognitive basicness. Crucially, this reasoning collapses further in the visual domain. We term this deficit the Ungrounded Arrow: models possess high-fidelity concept representations (the “dots”) but lack the transformational operators (the “arrows”) essential for true relational understanding.

论文发现出处

这些页面提供论文线索,不代表同行评审或质量认证。

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

发表信息与关联版本

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化,不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时,按该月或该年首日存档。

记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本

CogEvolve: A Multimodal Benchmark for Evaluating Relational Reasoning in Semantic Extension

Human cognition excels at extending knowledge through analogy, where word meanings evolve along structured pathways from concrete prototypes to abstract senses via metaphor and metonymy. Do Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize this generative logic, or merely mimic statistical patterns? To investigate this, we introduce CogEvolve, a cognitive linguistic benchmark designed to test these evolutionary pathways across textual and visual modalities. Our evaluation reveals a distinct cognitive profile: models function as “Super-Associators” expert at static recognition yet fail at causal reasoning. In text, they exhibit a Frequency-Primacy Conflation, confusing statistical prevalence with cognitive basicness. Crucially, this reasoning collapses further in the visual domain. We term this deficit the Ungrounded Arrow: models possess high-fidelity concept representations (the “dots”) but lack the transformational operators (the “arrows”) essential for true relational understanding.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗