arXiv AI By Zhibo Hu, Chen Wang, Yanfeng Shu, Hye-young Paik, Liming Dong, Liming Zhu

Metaphor-Induced Algorithmic Steering: Cross-Domain Procedural Transfer in LLM Code Generation

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 28683v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models benefit from elements in natural language, such as metaphors and analogies in training data and inference input to achieve generalisability across different domains.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 31

Beyond Pixels: Visual Metaphor Transfer via Schema-Driven Agentic Reasoning

The paper introduces Visual Metaphor Transfer (VMT), a task that requires models to extract the abstract ‘creative essence’ from a reference image and apply it to a new target subject. It proposes a multi‑agent framework based on Conceptual Blending Theory, using a Schema Grammar to separate relational invariants from visual entities. The system includes perception, transfer, generation, and diagnostic agents, and experimental results show it outperforms state‑of‑the‑art baselines in metaphor consistency, analogy appropriateness, and visual creativity.

By Yu Xu, Yuxin Zhang, Lin Gao, Oliver Deussen, Tong-Yee Lee, Fan Tang
arXiv AI
Jun 26

Metaphors are a Source of Cross-Domain Misalignment of Large Reasoning Models

arXiv:2601. 03388v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Earlier research has shown that metaphors influence human decision-making, raising the question of whether metaphors also influence large language models (LLMs)' reasoning pathways, given that their training data contain a large number of metaphors.

By Zhibo Hu, Chen Wang, Yanfeng Shu, Hye-young Paik, Liming Zhu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 20

Computational models of pragmatic reasoning with flexible generation of meaning and expression alternatives

Pragmatic language use requires reasoning about alternatives: the alternative expressions a speaker might have chosen, or the alternative interpretations a listener might entertain. Formal and computational models of pragmatics must therefore specify the sets of alternatives that interlocutors reason over, which is often done through manual specification.