Modelling Adjectival Modification Effects on Semantic Plausibility

Recent advances in language models have substantially improved Natural Language Understanding (NLU). Although widely used benchmarks suggest that Large Language Models (LLMs) can effectively disambiguate, their practical applicability in real-world narrative contexts remains underexplored. SemEval-2026 Task 5 addresses this gap by introducing a task that predicts the human-perceived plausibility of a word sense within a short story. In this work, we propose an LLM-based framework for plausibility scoring of homonymous word senses in narrative texts using a structured reasoning mechanism. We examine the impact of fine-tuning low-parameter LLMs with diverse reasoning strategies, alongside dynamic few-shot prompting for large-parameter models, on accurate sense identification and plausibility estimation. Our results show that commercial large-parameter LLMs with dynamic few-shot prompting closely replicate human-like plausibility judgments. Furthermore, model ensembling slightly improves performance, better simulating the agreement patterns of five human annotators compared to single-model predictions

Event knowledge concerns who does what to whom. Psycholinguists use event-plausibility judgments to examine how this knowledge supports human language processing. To isolate plausibility effects, these studies require controlled event sets in which one event slot varies across plausibility levels while all other event features remain fixed. Constructing such sets manually is labor-intensive. We therefore introduce STRIVE, an LLM-based framework for jointly generating and evaluating controlled event sets crossing plausibility class (plausible vs. implausible) with intended classification difficulty (easy vs. hard). Given a verb, STRIVE constructs a shared event frame, then produces one event per condition by varying one slot while holding all others fixed. In experiments with six models across 60 verbs, GPT-5.1 produced high-quality sets only 16.7% of the time using the baseline generation prompt. Adding a global reasoning scratchpad and evaluator-guided refinement raised this rate to 75.0%. Greater reasoning effort also improved evaluator--human agreement. Nevertheless, events near the plausibility boundary remain most difficult. They elicit the greatest human disagreement, and the best evaluator reaches only 57% accuracy on the implausible-hard condition, indicating a need for human input. Overall, STRIVE offers a scalable approach to reducing manual effort by automating initial event-set generation and evaluation for psycholinguistic studies.

LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct. We term this failure mode \emph{correction suppression} and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models. Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon. Mechanistic analysis reveals that suppression is not a knowledge failure: the model registers the error internally but task context diverts early-layer attention from the false claim as output intent crystallizes toward compliance at middle layers. We characterize this as \emph{knowing but not correcting} -- suppression occurs at response selection rather than knowledge encoding. Guided by this mechanism, we propose two training-free interventions. Correction Direction Steering (CDS) estimates a correction-compliance direction from matched pairs and injects it at middle layers before output intent crystallizes. Dynamic Payload Amplification (DPA) localizes payload tokens via attention divergence between early and late layers and amplifies their representation at the final layer, requiring no calibration data. Experiments on Qwen3.5-9B and LLaMA3.1-8B show both methods substantially improve factual strictness. CDS achieves the highest correction rate on Qwen3.5-9B (0%$\to$58.2%). DPA is the only method that preserves or improves reasoning capability on both models. These findings introduce \emph{factual strictness} -- the willingness to uphold accuracy against contextual pressures -- as a new dimension of model reliability.