An Exploration-Analysis-Disambiguation Reasoning Framework for Word Sense Disambiguation with Low-Parameter LLMs
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Swansea University, Fabian Way, Crymlyn Burrows, Swansea, Wales, UK
Abstract
Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) remains a key challenge in Natural Language Processing (NLP), especially when dealing with rare or domain-specific senses that are often misinterpreted. While modern high-parameter Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4-Turbo have shown state-of-the-art WSD performance, their computational and energy demands limit scalability. This study investigates whether low-parameter LLMs (<4B parameters) can achieve comparable results through fine-tuning strategies that emphasize reasoning-driven sense identification. Using the FEWS dataset augmented with semi-automated, rationale-rich annotations, we fine-tune eight small-scale open-source LLMs (e.g. Gemma and Qwen). Our results reveal that Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-based reasoning combined with neighbour-word analysis achieves performance comparable to GPT-4-Turbo in zero-shot settings. Importantly, Gemma-3-4B and Qwen-3-4B models consistently outperform all medium-parameter baselines and state-of-the-art models on FEWS, with robust generalization to unseen senses. Furthermore, evaluation on the unseen "Fool Me If You Can'' dataset confirms strong cross-domain adaptability without task-specific fine-tuning. This work demonstrates that with carefully crafted reasoning-centric fine-tuning, low-parameter LLMs can deliver accurate WSD while substantially reducing computational and energy demands.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Size (K) | Input | Output | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max | Avg | Max | Avg | ||
| Direct sense | 101 | 511 | 44.7 | 251 | 13.9 |
| COT R | 101 | 1915 | 226.1 | 1921 | 265.9 |
| Advanced R | 10 | 1865 | 212.6 | 2477 | 672.0 |
| Verb R | 4.5 | 1915 | 222.6 | 2607 | 764.4 |
| Models | Base Inference | Instructional Fine-Tuning | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | F1 Score | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | |
| Gemma 2 2B | 0.7720 | 0.7341 | 0.7515 | 0.7870 | 0.7781 | 0.7814 |
| Gemma 3 4B | 0.7806 | 0.7302 | 0.7534 | 0.7741 | 0.7214 | 0.7458 |
| Llama 3.2 1B | 0.6439 | 0.7503 | 0.6923 | 0.7919 | 0.7474 | 0.7681 |
| Llama 3.2 3B | 0.7616 | 0.7330 | 0.7430 | 0.8079 | 0.7567 | 0.7804 |
| SmolLM 3 | 0.7687 | 0.7656 | 0.7662 | 0.7884 | 0.7636 | 0.7749 |
| Models | Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fine Tuned with CoT based Neighbour words analysis Approach | |||||
| SmolLM 3B (1 epoch) | 0.52 | 0.35 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.47 |
| Gemma-2 2B (1 epoch) | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.67 |
| Qwen 2.5 3B (1 epoch) | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.69 |
| Gemma 3 4B (1 epoch) | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.72 |
| Qwen 3 4B (2 epochs) | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.74 |
| Models | Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fine Tuned with COT based Neighbour words analysis Approach (Zero shot) | |||||
| Qwen 3 4B (2 epochs) | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0 .75 | 0.68 | 0.74 ∗∗ |
| Gemma 3 4B (2 epochs) | 0.81 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.75 ∗∗ |
| Fine Tuned with COT based Neighbour words analysis Approach (Few shot) | |||||
| Qwen 3 4B (2 epochs) | 0.74 | 0.62 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.68 |
| Gemma 3 4B (2 epochs) | 0.78 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.78 | 0.72 |
| Dataset | MFS | Lesk | SemEq b | SemEq L | ESR b | ESR L | RTWE L | Qwen | Gemma | GlossGPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fewshot | 51.5 | 40.9 | 80.1 | 82.3 | 77.8 | 83.4 | 78.4 | 76.52 | 75.68 | 90.7 |
| Zeroshot | - | 39.0 | 70.2 | 72.2 | 71.6 | 75.8 | 69.9 | 72.66 | 71.86 | 79.5 |
| Model | Neighbour Word A. | Semantic A. | Syntactic & Semantic A. | Hybrid |
| Qwen3-4B | 0.679 ∗ | 0.662 | 0.677 | 0.602 |
| Gemma3-4B | 0.658 ∗∗ | 0.601 | 0.628 | 0.544 |
| *** , ** , * | ||||
| Dataset | ARES | BEM | ESC | EWS | GEN | SYN | CSC | SandWiCH | Gemma | Qwen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42D | 41.8 | 53.2 | 58.9 | 43.9 | 50.2 | 32.8 | 56.6 | 77.1 | 64.43 | 78.48 |
| hardEN | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.35 | 53.4 | 40.71 | 54.19 |
| Models | # Parameters | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3 | Set 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roberta-base | 125M | 0.945 | 0.969 | 0.888 | 0.715 |
| Bert-large | 340M | 0.970 | 0.978 | 0.874 | 0.689 |
| T5-large | 770M | 0.984 | 0.987 | 0.896 | 0.691 |
| FLAN-T5-large | 780M | 0.948 | 0.953 | 0.852 | 0.663 |
| T5-xl | 3B | 0.991 | 0.992 | 0.907 | 0.710 |
| FLAN-T5-xl | 3B | 0.955 | 0.958 | 0.881 | 0.718 |
| You are a helpful assistant tasked with simulating the human thinking process for Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD). Given a sentence containing an ambiguous word, along with the expected sense ID, your goal is to generate a detailed and logical reasoning process as a human would. Your response should include: • Contextual Analysis – Explain how the surrounding context in the sentence helps determine the correct meaning of the ambiguous word. • Justification of the Correct Sense ID – Provide a clear explanation of why the expected sense ID is appropriate in this context. • Elimination of Incorrect Senses – Briefly describe why the other possible sense IDs do not fit the given context. Be thorough, logical, and emulate how a human would naturally think through the disambiguation. Do not include any additional information or instructions outside of the reasoning process. |
| You are a helpful assistant tasked with simulating the human thinking process for Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD). Given a sentence containing an ambiguous word, along with the expected sense ID, your goal is to generate a detailed and logical reasoning process as a human would. The given ambiguous word is a VERB. Your response should include: 1. Syntactic Evidence — Summarize the verb’s morphosyntax (tense/aspect/voice), immediate dependents (subject, objects, complements), key function words (auxiliaries, particles, prepositions), and any relevant dependency/constituent patterns that constrain its meaning. 2. Semantic Evidence — Describe selectional preferences and semantic roles implied by the verb, plausible paraphrases, collocations, and context/topic cues (entities, events) that support a specific sense. 3. Decision — State the chosen sense ID and give a clear justification that ties the syntactic and semantic cues to that sense. 4. Elimination of Alternatives — Briefly state why other possible sense IDs do not fit given the observed syntax and semantics. Be thorough, logical, and emulate how a human would naturally think through the disambiguation. Do not include any additional information or instructions outside of the reasoning process. |
| You are an expert evaluator assessing the quality of Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) reasoning generated by an AI system. Task Context: • Original sentence, ambiguous word, and sense definitions: {input_text} • Correct sense ID: {senseid} • Generated Reasoning to evaluate: {reasoning} Evaluation Instructions: Evaluate the generated reasoning on the following four dimensions using a 1-5 scale: 1. Contextual Analysis Quality : Does the reasoning identify and explain relevant contextual clues effectively? • 5: Comprehensively identifies all relevant contextual clues and explains their disambiguation role • 4: Identifies most key contextual elements with clear explanations • 3: Identifies some context but misses important clues or lacks depth • 2: Minimal contextual analysis with superficial observations • 1: Incorrect or irrelevant contextual analysis 2. Sense ID Justification Accuracy : Is the justification for the correct sense logically sound and semantically accurate? • 5: Provides precise, logically sound justification with clear semantic connections • 4: Good justification with minor gaps in reasoning • 3: Adequate justification but lacks depth or contains minor logical errors • 2: Weak justification with significant logical gaps • 1: Incorrect or nonsensical justification 3. Elimination Reasoning Completeness : Does it systematically eliminate alternative senses with clear reasoning? • 5: Systematically eliminates all alternative senses with clear reasoning • 4: Eliminates most alternatives with good reasoning • 3: Partial elimination with some reasoning gaps • 2: Minimal elimination or weak reasoning • 1: No elimination or incorrect reasoning 4. Overall Coherence and Human-likeness : Does the reasoning flow naturally like human thinking? • 5: Reads like natural human reasoning, logically structured and comprehensive • 4: Good flow with minor artificiality • 3: Adequate but somewhat mechanical or repetitive • 2: Disjointed or overly formulaic • 1: Incoherent or completely artificial Output Format (JSON): { "contextual_analysis_score": 1-5, "justification_accuracy_score": 1-5, "elimination_completeness_score": 1-5, "coherence_score": 1-5 } |