Extracting metaphors and analogies from free text requires high-level reasoning abilities such as abstraction and language understanding. Our study focuses on the extraction of the concepts forming metaphoric analogies in literary texts. To this end, we construct a novel dataset in this domain with the help of domain experts. We compare the out-of-the-box ability of recent large language models (LLMs) to structure metaphoric mappings from fragments of texts containing rather explicit proportional analogies. The models are further evaluated on the generation of implicit elements of the analogy, which are indirectly suggested in the texts and inferred by human readers. The competitive results obtained by LLMs in our experiments are encouraging and open up new avenues such as automatically extracting analogies and metaphors from text instead of investing resources in domain experts to manually label data.

The ability to compare by analogy, metaphorically or not, lies at the core of how humans understand the world and communicate. In this paper, we study the likelihood of metaphoric outputs, and the capability of a wide range of pretrained transformer-based language models to identify metaphors from other types of analogies, including anomalous ones. In particular, we are interested in discovering whether language models recognise metaphorical analogies equally well as other types of analogies, and whether the model size has an impact on this ability. The results show that there are relevant differences using perplexity as a proxy, with the larger models reducing the gap when it comes to analogical processing, and for distinguishing metaphors from incorrect analogies. This behaviour does not result in increased difficulties for larger generative models in identifying metaphors in comparison to other types of analogies from anomalous sentences in a zero-shot generation setting, when perplexity values of metaphoric and non-metaphoric analogies are similar.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and amplify harmful stereotypes, particularly those that disproportionately affect marginalised communities. To understand the effect of these stereotypes more comprehensively, we introduce GlobalBias, a dataset of 876k sentences incorporating 40 distinct gender-by-ethnicity groups alongside descriptors typically used in bias literature, which enables us to study a broad set of stereotypes from around the world. We use GlobalBias to directly probe a suite of LMs via perplexity, which we use as a proxy to determine how certain stereotypes are represented in the model’s internal representations. Following this, we generate character profiles based on given names and evaluate the prevalence of stereotypes in model outputs. We find that the demographic groups associated with various stereotypes remain consistent across model likelihoods and model outputs. Furthermore, larger models consistently display higher levels of stereotypical outputs, even when explicitly instructed not to.