Skip to content
Preprint

Where did the ambiguity go? Examining how multimodal models interpret polysemous words

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 82 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

A multimodal gap is revealed in how foundation models express meaning, and how their understanding may not transfer faithfully nor equally across modalities.

Abstract

Human language is highly polysemous. Many common words (e.g.,"bank"or"palm") carry several distinct meanings that shape what humans communicate and imagine. Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to understand this multiplicity of meaning, but much less is known about how polysemy surfaces in other modalities such as images. We study this across 17 text-to-image and 15 text-generation models by giving each a polysemous word with no context to fix its meaning and measuring which senses are produced over many samples. We find a clear multimodal gap, where within every model family, generated images settle on far fewer senses than generated sentences (normalized entropy 0.10 vs. 0.25), and both are far less varied than what people imagine for the same words (normalized entropy 0.47). However, when we instead ask a model to list how often it would generate outputs corresponding to each possible meaning of a word, it predicts distributions that are more diverse than the actual space of outputs. These results reveal a multimodal gap in how foundation models express meaning, and how their understanding may not transfer faithfully nor equally across modalities.

View source

Similar papers

Aug 2026

EXPRESS: Measuring Individual Differences in Word-Meaning Disambiguation.

Theories of the mental lexicon must explain how people use context to interpret ambiguous words (e.g., "internal organ" vs. "musical organ") and why people vary on this core aspect of comprehension. Theoretical development has been hampered by the lack of reliable tests of disambiguation skill. We introduce a task in w...

L. M. Blott, A. Gowenlock, A. J. Parker et al. · 0 citations
Open access Apr 2025

Do Language Models Know Who Did What to Whom?

Abstract Language models (LMs) are commonly criticized for not “understanding” language. However, many critiques focus on cognitive abilities that, in humans, are distinct from language processing. Here, we instead study a kind of understanding tightly linked to language: inferring “who did what to whom” (thematic role...

Joseph M. Denning, Xiaohan Guo, Bryor Snefjella et al. · 1 citation
Aug 2026

The Cybernetic Order-word: Tensors, Tensions and LLM Vector Spaces

Why what is really a matter of data analytics and statistical prediction is so readily assumed to be a display of real intelligence and even emergent cognition is explored by genealogically tracing the relationship between machines, organisms and language.

Chantelle Gray · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Developing a naturalistic approach for an experimental question: Perception of acoustically ambiguous phonemes within semantically disambiguating discourse

While acoustic details such as voice onset time can be informative as to the identity of a phoneme (e.g., GOAT versus COAT), these details are not always reliable. Fortunately, disambiguating cues can often be found elsewhere, such as the semantic context. Indeed, acoustically ambiguous phonemes can be perceptually bia...

Mel Mallard, Kristin J. Van Engen · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

A flexicon without words

This study investigates how the concept of morphological transcendence ( Libben, 2010 , 2014 ) is manifest across semantic, visual, and phonetic processing of English compounds. The theory of morphological transcendence proposes that constituents inside compounds take on position-specific meanings that differ...

M. Bell, R. Baayen · 1 citation

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.