Can Large Language Models generalize analogy solving like people can?

When we solve an analogy we transfer information from a known context to a new one through abstract rules and relational similarity. In people, the ability to solve analogies such as "body : feet :: table : ?" emerges in childhood, and appears to transfer easily to other domains, such as the visual domain "( : ) :: < : ?". Recent research shows that large language models (LLMs) can solve various forms of analogies. However, can LLMs generalize analogy solving to new domains like people can? To investigate this, we had children, adults, and LLMs solve a series of letter-string analogies (e.g., a b : a c :: j k : ?) in the Latin alphabet, in a near transfer domain (Greek alphabet), and a far transfer domain (list of symbols). As expected, children and adults easily generalized their knowledge to unfamiliar domains, whereas LLMs did not. This key difference between human and AI performance is evidence that these LLMs still struggle with robust human-like analogical transfer.

Do large language models solve verbal analogies like children do?

Analogy-making lies at the heart of human cognition. Adults solve analogies such as \textit{Horse belongs to stable like chicken belongs to ...?} by mapping relations (\textit{kept in}) and answering \textit{chicken coop}. In contrast, children often use association, e.g., answering \textit{egg}. This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) solve verbal analogies in A:B::C:? form using associations, similar to what children do. We use verbal analogies extracted from an online adaptive learning environment, where 14,002 7-12 year-olds from the Netherlands solved 622 analogies in Dutch. The six tested Dutch monolingual and multilingual LLMs performed around the same level as children, with MGPT performing worst, around the 7-year-old level, and XLM-V and GPT-3 the best, slightly above the 11-year-old level. However, when we control for associative processes this picture changes and each model's performance level drops 1-2 years. Further experiments demonstrate that associative processes often underlie correctly solved analogies. We conclude that the LLMs we tested indeed tend to solve verbal analogies by association with C like children do.