An Exploration-Analysis-Disambiguation Reasoning Framework for Word Sense Disambiguation with Low-Parameter LLMs

Deshan Sumanathilaka, Nicholas Micallef, Julian Hough · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 5, 2026, 5:27 PM

Fresh

Extraction refreshed

Mar 7, 2026, 11:27 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) remains a key challenge in Natural Language Processing (NLP), especially when dealing with rare or domain-specific senses that are often misinterpreted. While modern high-parameter Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4-Turbo have shown state-of-the-art WSD performance, their computational and energy demands limit scalability. This study investigates whether low-parameter LLMs (<4B parameters) can achieve comparable results through fine-tuning strategies that emphasize reasoning-driven sense identification. Using the FEWS dataset augmented with semi-automated, rationale-rich annotations, we fine-tune eight small-scale open-source LLMs (e.g. Gemma and Qwen). Our results reveal that Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-based reasoning combined with neighbour-word analysis achieves performance comparable to GPT-4-Turbo in zero-shot settings. Importantly, Gemma-3-4B and Qwen-3-4B models consistently outperform all medium-parameter baselines and state-of-the-art models on FEWS, with robust generalization to unseen senses. Furthermore, evaluation on the unseen "Fool Me If You Can'' dataset confirms strong cross-domain adaptability without task-specific fine-tuning. This work demonstrates that with carefully crafted reasoning-centric fine-tuning, low-parameter LLMs can deliver accurate WSD while substantially reducing computational and energy demands.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.