Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.03410

To What Extent Do Large Language Models Understand Bangla Idioms?

Mousumi Akter·Md. Faiyaz Abdullah Sayeedi·Nurul Labib Sayeedi·Swakkhar Shatabda
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Idiomatic expressions are an integral part of natural language, reflecting cultural nuances and posing unique challenges for computational models, particularly in low-resource languages. In this paper, we present the first large-scale benchmark dataset of Bangla idioms, complemented by a synthetic multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset for idiom meaning identification. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of recent large language models (LLMs) across three idiom-related tasks: paraphrasing, idiom span detection, and meaning identification, leveraging zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. Our results reveal substantial variability in model performance, with no single LLM consistently outperforming others across all tasks. Notably, Phi-4-mini-instruct excels in paraphrasing, Kimi-K2-32b-instruct in span detection, and Gemini-2.5-flash in meaning identification. We believe that our datasets and analyses will provide valuable resources to guide future research in improving LLM comprehension of idiomatic expressions, particularly in Bangla and other low-resource languages.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Mousumi Akter, Md. Faiyaz Abdullah Sayeedi, Nurul Labib Sayeedi, Swakkhar Shatabda. 2026-09-03. To What Extent Do Large Language Models Understand Bangla Idioms?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03410

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.CL subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL↗
arXiv2024

Density Matrices for Metaphor Understanding

In physics, density matrices are used to represent mixed states, i.e. probabilistic mixtures of pure states. This concept has previously been used to model lexical ambiguity. In this paper, we consider metaphor as a type of lexical ambiguity, and examine whether metaphorical meaning can be effectively modelled using mixtures of word senses. We find that modelling metaphor is significantly more difficult than other kinds of lexical ambiguity, but that our best-performing density matrix method outperforms simple baselines as well as some neural language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Informational Antilocality and the Locality Bias in LLMs

We consider the ability of transformer-based language models (LLMs) to learn what we call k-antilocal languages, i.e., languages that have no mutual information across any span of $k$ contiguous symbols. We construct such languages with increasing $k$, finding that LLMs trained on them achieve comparable cross-entropy loss regardless of antilocality, but converge more slowly on more antilocal languages. Our findings support the idea that non-local dependencies are more difficult to learn, but the evidence for this bias comes from learning speed rather than learning success.

cs.CL↗