SwanNLP at SemEval-2026 Task 5: An LLM-based Framework for Plausibility Scoring in Narrative Word Sense Disambiguation

arXiv cs.CL / 4/20/2026

📰 NewsSignals & Early TrendsModels & Research

Key Points

  • SemEval-2026 Task 5 is introduced to bridge a gap in real-world narrative settings by evaluating models on predicting human-perceived plausibility of a word sense in short stories.
  • The paper proposes an LLM-based plausibility scoring framework for homonymous word sense disambiguation, using structured reasoning to make the scoring more systematic.
  • It studies how fine-tuning low-parameter LLMs with different reasoning strategies and applying dynamic few-shot prompting to large-parameter LLMs affect sense identification and plausibility estimation.
  • Results indicate that commercial large-parameter LLMs with dynamic few-shot prompting can closely mirror human plausibility judgments, and model ensembling yields modest gains by better reflecting annotator agreement patterns.

Abstract

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