Recent advancements in large vision language models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency across a wide range of tasks. Yet, these models still struggle with understanding the nuances of human humor through juxtaposition, particularly when it involves nonlinear narratives that underpin many jokes and humor cues. This paper investigates this challenge by focusing on comics with contradictory narratives, where each comic consists of two panels that create a humorous contradiction. We introduce the YesBut benchmark, which comprises tasks of varying difficulty aimed at assessing AI's capabilities in recognizing and interpreting these comics, ranging from literal content comprehension to deep narrative reasoning. Through extensive experimentation and analysis of recent commercial or open-sourced large vision language models, we assess their capability to comprehend the complex interplay of the narrative humor inherent in these comics. Our results show that even the state-of-the-art models still struggle with this task. Our findings offer insights into the current limitations and potential improvements for AI in understanding human creative expressions.

In this paper, we introduce DeAR (Decompose-Analyze-Rethink), a framework that iteratively builds a reasoning tree to tackle intricate problems within a single large language model (LLM). Unlike approaches that extend or search for rationales, DeAR is featured by 1) adopting a tree-based question decomposition manner to plan the organization of rationales, which mimics the logical planning inherentin human cognition; 2) globally updating the rationales at each reasoning step through natural language feedback. Specifically, the Decompose stage decomposes the question into simpler sub-questions, storing them as new nodes; the Analyze stage generates and self-checks rationales for sub-questions at each node evel; and the Rethink stage updates parent-node rationales based on feedback from their child nodes. By generating and updating the reasoning process from a more global perspective, DeAR constructs more adaptive and accurate logical structures for complex problems, facilitating timely error correction compared to rationale-extension and search-based approaches such as Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) and Graph-of-Thoughts (GoT). We conduct extensive experiments on three reasoning benchmarks, including ScienceQA, StrategyQA, and GSM8K, which cover a variety of reasoning tasks, demonstrating that our approach significantly reduces logical errors and enhances performance across various LLMs. Furthermore, we validate that DeAR is an efficient method that achieves a superior trade-off between accuracy and reasoning time compared to ToT and GoT.

Surveys have recently gained popularity as a tool to study large language models. By comparing models’ survey responses to those of different human reference populations, researchers aim to infer the demographics, political opinions, or values best represented by current language models. In this work, we critically examine language models' survey responses on the basis of the well-established American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. Evaluating 43 different language models using de-facto standard prompting methodologies, we establish two dominant patterns. First, models' responses are governed by ordering and labeling biases, for example, towards survey responses labeled with the letter “A”. Second, when adjusting for these systematic biases through randomized answer ordering, models across the board trend towards uniformly random survey responses, irrespective of model size or training data. As a result, models consistently appear to better represent subgroups whose aggregate statistics are closest to uniform for the survey under consideration, leading to potentially misguided conclusions about model alignment.