ChatGPT与人类读者在推理中的互补优势：来自英语文本阅读理解的经验证据
Complementary Advantages of ChatGPTs and Human Readers in Reasoning: Evidence from English Text Reading Comprehension
AI总结：
本研究通过三个推理测试比较ChatGPT与高中生，发现两者在常识、情感和因果推理上各有优劣，形成互补关系。
摘要：
ChatGPT在文本处理方面展现了强大的能力，包括从文本阅读中进行推理的能力。然而，目前尚未有关于人类读者与ChatGPT在文本阅读相关推理能力上的直接比较。本研究旨在探讨ChatGPT（即ChatGPT和ChatGPT Plus）与中国高中生作为英语作为第二语言学习者在从英语叙事文本中进行推理时所表现出的能力。此外，我们在精心更新指令的条件下比较了两个ChatGPT在推理表现上的差异。整个研究由三个推理测试组成：测试1为常识推理，测试2为情感推理，测试3为因果推理。结果显示，在测试1中，学生在与本地文化相关的推理上优于两个ChatGPT版本，但在日常生活推理上表现不如聊天机器人。在测试2中，ChatGPT Plus表现出色，而ChatGPT在准确性上落后。结合正确回答的准确性和频率来看，学生逊于两个聊天机器人。与ChatGPT在积极情感推理上的更好表现相比，学生在推理消极情感方面表现出优势。在测试3中，学生展示了更好的逻辑分析能力，优于两个聊天机器人。在更新指令的条件下，ChatGPT Plus表现出良好的因果推理能力，而ChatGPT保持不变。我们的研究揭示了人类读者和ChatGPT在从文本阅读理解中进行推理时各有优缺点，解锁了基于文本推理中的互补关系。
英文摘要：
ChatGPT has shown its great power in text processing, including its reasoning ability from text reading. However, there has not been any direct comparison between human readers and ChatGPT in reasoning ability related to text reading. This study was undertaken to investigate how ChatGPTs (i.e., ChatGPT and ChatGPT Plus) and Chinese senior school students as ESL learners exhibited their reasoning ability from English narrative texts. Additionally, we compared the two ChatGPTs in the reasoning performances when commands were updated elaborately. The whole study was composed of three reasoning tests: Test 1 for commonsense inference, Test 2 for emotional inference, and Test 3 for causal inference. The results showed that in Test 1, the students outdid the two ChatGPT versions in local-culture-related inferences but performed worse than the chatbots in daily-life inferences. In Test 2, ChatGPT Plus excelled whereas ChatGPT lagged behind in accuracy. In association with both accuracy and frequency of correct responses, the students were inferior to the two chatbots. Compared with ChatGPTs' better performance in positive emotions, the students showed their superiority in inferring negative emotions. In Test 3, the students demonstrated better logical analysis, outdoing both chatbots. In updating command condition, ChatGPT Plus displayed good causal reasoning ability while ChatGPT kept unchanged. Our study reveals that human readers and ChatGPTs have their respective advantages and disadvantages in drawing inferences from text reading comprehension, unlocking a complementary relationship in text-based reasoning.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
