Metaphorical language is prevalent in everyday communication, often used unconsciously, as in “rising crime.” While LLMs excel at identifying metaphors in text, they struggle with downstream tasks that implicitly require correct metaphor interpretation, such as natural language inference (NLI). This work explores how LLMs perform on NLI with metaphorical input. Particularly, we investigate whether incorporating conceptual metaphors (source and target domains) enhances performance in zero-shot and few-shot settings. Our contributions are two-fold: (1) we extend metaphorical texts in an existing NLI dataset by source and target domains, and (2) we conduct an ablation study using Shapley values and interactions to assess the extent to which LLMs interpret metaphorical language correctly in NLI. Our results indicate that incorporating conceptual metaphors often improves task performance.

Recent advances on instruction fine-tuning have led to the development of various prompting techniques for large language models, such as explicit reasoning steps. However, the success of techniques depends on various parameters, such as the task, language model, and context provided. Finding an effective prompt is, therefore, often a trial-and-error process. Most existing approaches to automatic prompting aim to optimize individual techniques instead of compositions of techniques and their dependence on the input. To fill this gap, we propose an adaptive prompting approach that predicts the optimal prompt composition ad-hoc for a given input. We apply our approach to social bias detection, a highly context-dependent task that requires semantic understanding. We evaluate it with three large language models on three datasets, comparing compositions to individual techniques and other baselines. The results underline the importance of finding an effective prompt composition. Our approach robustly ensures high detection performance, and is best in several settings. Moreover, first experiments on other tasks support its generalizability.

The ability to generate explanations that are understood by explainees is the quintessence of explainable artificial intelligence. Since understanding depends on the explainee’s background and needs, recent research focused on co-constructive explanation dialogues, where an explainer continuously monitors the explainee’s understanding and adapts their explanations dynamically. We investigate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to engage as explainers in co-constructive explanation dialogues. In particular, we present a user study in which explainees interact with an LLM in two settings, one of which involves the LLM being instructed to explain a topic co-constructively. We evaluate the explainees’ understanding before and after the dialogue, as well as their perception of the LLMs’ co-constructive behavior. Our results suggest that LLMs show some co-constructive behaviors, such as asking verification questions, that foster the explainees’ engagement and can improve understanding of a topic. However, their ability to effectively monitor the current understanding and scaffold the explanations accordingly remains limited.

In this paper, we present the annotation challenges we have encountered when working on a historical language that was undergoing elaboration processes. We especially focus on syntactic ambiguity and gradience in Middle Low German, which causes uncertainty to some extent. Since current annotation tools consider construction contexts and the dynamics of the grammaticalization only partially, we plan to extend CorA - a web-based annotation tool for historical and other non-standard language data - to capture elaboration phenomena and annotator unsureness. Moreover, we seek to interactively learn morphological as well as syntactic annotations.