Do Large Language Models Perform Well on Comprehending Poetic Logic in Modern Chinese Poetry?
Authors: Tian Lan, Shanshan Wang, Zehua Duo, Jiang Li, Guanglai Gao, Derek F. Wong, Xiangdong Su
Organizations: Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University · NLP2CT Lab, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau · College of Computer Science, Inner Mongolia University
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant progress across a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, yet their ability to understand literary texts, particularly modern Chinese poetry, remains largely unexplored. The unique literary characteristics of modern Chinese poetry necessitate a distinct form of reasoning for effective comprehension. Unlike conventional texts that convey clear information, the unique "poetic logic" of modern Chinese poetry requires a holistic reasoning approach that goes beyond superficial semantic analysis to be understood. However, current evaluation paradigms largely ignore this critical dimension. To address this gap, we propose Peony, the first benchmark specifically designed for evaluating the poetic logic of modern Chinese poetry. We define poetic logic as four tasks across three levels, namely stanza, line, and imagery, and systematically evaluate and analyze six mainstream LLMs based on Peony. We evaluate these models under both non-thinking and thinking configurations. The experimental results reveal the limitations of current LLMs in understanding the poetic logic of modern Chinese poetry and validate the effectiveness and necessity of Peony. Our data and code will be available.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The overall structure of our proposed benchmark.
Figure 2: The distribution of the poems categorized by the number of stanzas and lines.
Metric
Value
Number of Poems
800
Number of lines
12,826
Average lines per Poem
16.03
Average Characters per line
10.23
Number of LIO
800 (800)
Number of STO
436 (436)
Table 1: Statistical information of the Peony benchmark. The actual number of questions is indicated in parentheses.
Category
Models
STO
LIO
IMF
SNI
Average
Non-thinking
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
47.02
49.31
66.08
37.21
49.91
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
45.96
51.00
72.93
42.12
53.01
GPT-5.1
39.08
43.25
69.44
36.14
46.98
Kimi-K2.5
52.38
63.00
75.25
48.93
59.89
GLM-5.1
49.54
56.12
68.98
42.20
54.21
Thinking
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
50.00
67.59
76.09
39.81
58.37
Table 2: Overall performance comparison of LLMs on the Peony benchmark (accuracy). Bold indicates the best performance and underline indicates the second best.
Category
Models
IMF PR
SNI PR
Non-thinking
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
51.27
11.62
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
59.95
12.50
GPT-5.1
56.60
8.88
Kimi-K2.5
62.50
18.62
GLM-5.1
54.89
13.12
Thinking
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
62.56
9.38
Table 3: PR for IMF and SNI tasks across different models. Bold indicates the best performance and underline indicates the second best.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 4: Prompt for Curating the Imagery Filling Task
Table 5: Prompt for Curating the Sentence Inference Task
Table 6: Prompt for Stanza Ordering (STO) Task
Table 7: Prompt for Sentence Ordering (LIO) Task
Table 8: Prompt for Imagery Filling (IMF) Task
Table 9: Prompt for Sentence Inference (SNI) Task
Task
Answers
A (%)
B (%)
C (%)
D (%)
IMF
695
27.5
25.0
23.5
24.0
SNI
2,424
25.4
24.1
25.7
24.7
LIO
800
23.6
25.9
26.0
24.5
STO
436
24.5
24.5
25.0
25.9
Overall
4,355
25.3
24.6
25.4
24.7
Appendix
Table 10: Distribution of correct answer positions.
Model
Original
STO1
STO2
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
47.02
47.71
46.56
GPT-5.1
39.08
39.45
39.68
Appendix
Table 11: STO accuracy under two random option permutations.
Benchmark
Poetry Type
#Tasks
Dataset Scale
Evaluation Target
CCPM (Li et al., 2021)
Classical
1
27,218 poems
Semantic matching
Hou et al. (2025)
Classical
1
2,918 poems
Theme classification
ChangAn (Li et al., 2026)
Classical
4
10K+ human-written + 20K+ AI-generated
LLM-generated poetry detection
Neo-Classic (Zhang et al., 2026)
Classical
5
1,406 poems (628 Shi + 778 Ci)
Linguistic-aesthetic reasoning
AIGenPoetry (Wang et al., 2025)
Modern
1
800 human-written + 41,600 LLM-generated
LLM-generated poetry detection
Peony
Modern
4
800 poems / 4,355 instances
Poetic-logic comprehension
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison with representative Chinese poetry benchmarks.
Top 20 Short Imagery Words
Top 20 Long Imagery Words
Rank
Imagery
Count
Rank
Imagery
Count
1
人 (Human)
245
1
自己 (Self)
145
2
爱 (Love)
90
2
天空 (Sky)
99
3
风 (Wind)
68
3
生命 (Life)
89
4
梦 (Dream)
46
4
雨水 (Rainwater)
80
5
水 (Water)
45
5
阳光 (Sunlight)
73
Appendix
Table 13: Top 20 high-frequency short and long imagery words in Peony.
Table 14: Experimental examples for different tasks. / represents a line break, // represents a stanza break.
Reader
IMF ( PR )
SNI ( PR )
LIO
STO
Avg.
Expert 1
94.12 (90)
70 (40)
40
80
71.03
Expert 2
47.06 (20)
16.67 (0)
60
60
45.93
Expert 3
82.35 (70)
30 (10)
50
30
48.09
Expert 4
58.82 (40)
36.67 (10)
50
20
41.37
Expert 5
76.47 (60)
36.67 (10)
80
10
50.79
Non-expert 1
70.59 (50)
30 (10)
60
40
50.15
Appendix
Table 15: Human performance. PR is shown in parentheses.
Table 16: An SNI case study illustrating cross-line poetic-logic errors.
NLP2CT Lab, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau · Department of Portuguese, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Macau
Mar 21, 2026·Shanshan Wang, Derek F. Wong, Jingming Yao +1LLM Evaluation
NLP2CT Lab, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau · Department of Portuguese, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Macau