This study investigates whether large language models, specifically GPT4, can match human capabilities in analogical reasoning within strategic decision making contexts. Using a novel experimental design involving source to target matching, we find that GPT4 achieves high recall by retrieving all plausible analogies but suffers from low precision, frequently applying incorrect analogies based on superficial similarities. In contrast, human participants exhibit high precision but low recall, selecting fewer analogies yet with stronger causal alignment. These findings advance theory by identifying matching, the evaluative phase of analogical reasoning, as a distinct step that requires accurate causal mapping beyond simple retrieval. While current LLMs are proficient in generating candidate analogies, humans maintain a comparative advantage in recognizing deep structural similarities across domains. Error analysis reveals that AI errors arise from surface level matching, whereas human errors stem from misinterpretations of causal structure. Taken together, the results suggest a productive division of labor in AI assisted organizational decision making where LLMs may serve as broad analogy generators, while humans act as critical evaluators, applying the most contextually appropriate analogies to strategic problems.

Analogy-making between narratives is crucial for human reasoning. In this paper, we evaluate the ability to identify and generate analogies by constructing a first-of-its-kind large-scale story-level analogy corpus, \textsc{StoryAnalogy}, which contains 24K story pairs from diverse domains with human annotations on two similarities from the extended Structure-Mapping Theory. We design a set of tests on \textsc{StoryAnalogy}, presenting the first evaluation of story-level analogy identification and generation. Interestingly, we find that the analogy identification tasks are incredibly difficult not only for sentence embedding models but also for the recent large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and LLaMa. ChatGPT, for example, only achieved around 30% accuracy in multiple-choice questions (compared to over 85% accuracy for humans). Furthermore, we observe that the data in \textsc{StoryAnalogy} can improve the quality of analogy generation in LLMs, where a fine-tuned FlanT5-xxl model achieves comparable performance to zero-shot ChatGPT.

The recent advent of large language models has reinvigorated debate over whether human cognitive capacities might emerge in such generic models given sufficient training data. Of particular interest is the ability of these models to reason about novel problems zero-shot, without any direct training. In human cognition, this capacity is closely tied to an ability to reason by analogy. Here, we performed a direct comparison between human reasoners and a large language model (the text-davinci-003 variant of GPT-3) on a range of analogical tasks, including a non-visual matrix reasoning task based on the rule structure of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. We found that GPT-3 displayed a surprisingly strong capacity for abstract pattern induction, matching or even surpassing human capabilities in most settings; preliminary tests of GPT-4 indicated even better performance. Our results indicate that large language models such as GPT-3 have acquired an emergent ability to find zero-shot solutions to a broad range of analogy problems.

This paper solves the fake news detection problem under a more realistic scenario on social media. Given the source short-text tweet and the corresponding sequence of retweet users without text comments, we aim at predicting whether the source tweet is fake or not, and generating explanation by highlighting the evidences on suspicious retweeters and the words they concern. We develop a novel neural network-based model, Graph-aware Co-Attention Networks (GCAN), to achieve the goal. Extensive experiments conducted on real tweet datasets exhibit that GCAN can significantly outperform state-of-the-art methods by 16% in accuracy on average. In addition, the case studies also show that GCAN can produce reasonable explanations.

Analogy-based Story Generation (ASG) is a relatively under-explored approach for story generation and computational narrative. In this paper, we present the SAM (Story Analogies through Mapping) algorithm as our attempt to expand the scope and complexity of stories generated by ASG. Comparing with existing work and our prior work, there are two main contributions of SAM: it employs 1) analogical reasoning both at the specific story content and general domain knowledge levels, and 2) temporal reasoning about the story (phase) structure in order to generate more complex stories. We illustrate SAM through a few example stories.

Computational narrative is a complex and interesting domain for exploring AI techniques that algorithmically analyze, understand, and most importantly, generate stories. This paper studies the importance of domain knowledge in story generation, and particularly in analogy-based story generation (ASG). Based on the construct of knowledge container in case-based reasoning, we present a theoretical framework for incorporating domain knowledge in ASG. We complement the framework with empirical results in our existing system Riu.