Large Language Models provide support for the parallelogram theory of analogy

Analogies help learners understand unfamiliar concepts by relating them to known concepts. Despite recent advances, large language models (LLMs) continue to struggle to generate analogies of comparable quality to those produced by humans. We present a modular pipeline for educational analogy generation, decomposing the task into four stages: source finding, sub-concept generation, explanation generation, and evaluation. Grounded in Structure Mapping Theory, the pipeline enables systematic, stage-by-stage analysis of how model choice and input configuration affect analogy quality. We evaluate 12 state-of-the-art LLMs across six model families on two datasets with structured sub-concept annotations (SCAR and ParallelPARC), alongside seven embedding models for closed-setting retrieval. Our results show that sub-concepts substantially improve explanation quality and closed setting retrieval precision but provide limited benefit in open-ended source generation. We further introduce an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation methodology and validate its scoring against human annotations from seven annotators, finding that Claude Sonnet 4.6 aligns more reliably with human rankings than with fine-grained absolute scores. Taken together, our findings reveal cross-stage interactions that isolated studies cannot capture, and highlight sub-concept grounding as a key driver of analogy quality generation.

Anaphors are expressions that refer to other expressions, called antecedents. The process of connecting the two is called resolution. Cognitive science has identified multiple factors that affect the speed and success of anaphor resolution, including discourse structure, situation-model properties, and semantic factors. Here, we investigate whether these factors also affect anaphor resolution in five Large Language Models (LLMs) with open weights: GPT-2-XL, Llama-3.1-8B, Pythia-12B, Mistral-7B, and Mistral-24B. To model processing difficulty, we adopt the standard linking hypothesis that relates human reading times to model surprisal at the anaphor. As a second behavioral measure, we compare model accuracy to human accuracy on comprehension questions probing the antecedents of anaphors. The results show selective cognitive alignment: some LLMs exhibit human-like sensitivity to discourse prominence and distance-based factors in anaphor resolution, while showing weaker or absent sensitivity to semantic interference effects. These findings delimit the conditions under which LLMs approximate human anaphor resolution.

Understanding reasoning in large language models is complicated by evaluations that conflate multiple reasoning types. We isolate analogical reasoning, where a model transfers an attribute between entities that share known properties, and study when such transfer can emerge from training. To make the problem analytically tractable, we study a minimal transformer-style abstraction that isolates how learned representations support analogical reasoning. Within this setting, we prove three key results. First, joint training on similarity and attribution premises enables analogical reasoning through aligned representations. Second, sequential training succeeds only when similarity structure is learned before specific attributes, revealing a curriculum asymmetry. Third, in our stylized setting, two-hop reasoning $(a \to b, b \to c \Rightarrow a \to c)$ can be viewed as analogical reasoning with identity bridges $(b=b)$, which appear explicitly in training data. Together, these results reveal a unified mechanism: entities with shared properties become aligned in representation space, enabling property transfer through feature resemblance. Experiments with architectures up to 8B parameters show qualitative agreement with the theory and suggest that representational geometry plays an important role in analogical reasoning beyond the stylized model.