Paper
Parallelograms Strike Back: LLMs Generate Better Analogies than People
Authors
Qiawen Ella Liu, Raja Marjieh, Jian-Qiao Zhu, Adele E. Goldberg, Thomas L. Griffiths
Abstract
Four-term word analogies (A:B::C:D) are classically modeled geometrically as ''parallelograms,'' yet recent work suggests this model poorly captures how humans produce analogies, with simple local-similarity heuristics often providing a better account (Peterson et al., 2020). But does the parallelogram model fail because it is a bad model of analogical relations, or because people are not very good at generating relation-preserving analogies? We compared human and large language model (LLM) analogy completions on the same set of analogy problems from (Peterson et al., 2020). We find that LLM-generated analogies are reliably judged as better than human-generated ones, and are also more closely aligned with the parallelogram structure in a distributional embedding space (GloVe). Crucially, we show that the improvement over human analogies was driven by greater parallelogram alignment and reduced reliance on accessible words rather than enhanced sensitivity to local similarity. Moreover, the LLM advantage is driven not by uniformly superior responses by LLMs, but by humans producing a long tail of weak completions: when only modal (most frequent) responses by both systems are compared, the LLM advantage disappears. However, greater parallelogram alignment and lower word frequency continue to predict which LLM completions are rated higher than those of humans. Overall, these results suggest that the parallelogram model is not a poor account of word analogy. Rather, humans may often fail to produce completions that satisfy this relational constraint, whereas LLMs do so more consistently.
Metadata
Related papers
Vibe Coding XR: Accelerating AI + XR Prototyping with XR Blocks and Gemini
Ruofei Du, Benjamin Hersh, David Li, Nels Numan, Xun Qian, Yanhe Chen, Zhongy... • 2026-03-25
Comparing Developer and LLM Biases in Code Evaluation
Aditya Mittal, Ryan Shar, Zichu Wu, Shyam Agarwal, Tongshuang Wu, Chris Donah... • 2026-03-25
The Stochastic Gap: A Markovian Framework for Pre-Deployment Reliability and Oversight-Cost Auditing in Agentic Artificial Intelligence
Biplab Pal, Santanu Bhattacharya • 2026-03-25
Retrieval Improvements Do Not Guarantee Better Answers: A Study of RAG for AI Policy QA
Saahil Mathur, Ryan David Rittner, Vedant Ajit Thakur, Daniel Stuart Schiff, ... • 2026-03-25
MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
Zhuo Li, Yupeng Zhang, Pengyu Cheng, Jiajun Song, Mengyu Zhou, Hao Li, Shujie... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19066v1</id>\n <title>Parallelograms Strike Back: LLMs Generate Better Analogies than People</title>\n <updated>2026-03-19T15:56:24Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19066v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.19066v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>Four-term word analogies (A:B::C:D) are classically modeled geometrically as ''parallelograms,'' yet recent work suggests this model poorly captures how humans produce analogies, with simple local-similarity heuristics often providing a better account (Peterson et al., 2020). But does the parallelogram model fail because it is a bad model of analogical relations, or because people are not very good at generating relation-preserving analogies? We compared human and large language model (LLM) analogy completions on the same set of analogy problems from (Peterson et al., 2020). We find that LLM-generated analogies are reliably judged as better than human-generated ones, and are also more closely aligned with the parallelogram structure in a distributional embedding space (GloVe). Crucially, we show that the improvement over human analogies was driven by greater parallelogram alignment and reduced reliance on accessible words rather than enhanced sensitivity to local similarity. Moreover, the LLM advantage is driven not by uniformly superior responses by LLMs, but by humans producing a long tail of weak completions: when only modal (most frequent) responses by both systems are compared, the LLM advantage disappears. However, greater parallelogram alignment and lower word frequency continue to predict which LLM completions are rated higher than those of humans. Overall, these results suggest that the parallelogram model is not a poor account of word analogy. Rather, humans may often fail to produce completions that satisfy this relational constraint, whereas LLMs do so more consistently.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.CL'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.AI'/>\n <published>2026-03-19T15:56:24Z</published>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.CL'/>\n <author>\n <name>Qiawen Ella Liu</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Raja Marjieh</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Jian-Qiao Zhu</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Adele E. Goldberg</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Thomas L. Griffiths</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}