# Claude Solves SAT Analogies

Several years ago, I tried to get Word2Vec to solve SAT analogies. It did not go well. Word2Vec got just 8 out of 36 right.

But in the last 7 years language models have gotten much, MUCH better. I wondered how a state-of-the-art model, one too large to run on my computer, would perform on the same questions.

To find out, I ran the analogies through Anthropic’s biggest model: Claude.

## Experimental Setup

I gave Claude the following instructions:

We’re going to solve SAT analogy questions. I’ll give you a pair of words like:

“authenticity : counterfeit”

And you determine the relationship between the two words, and then pick the pair from the next 5 with the same relation. So in this case I would give you:

reliability : erratic

mobility : energetic

reserve : reticent

anticipation : solemn

You need to pick:

“reliability : erratic”

Make sure to explain the relationship and why you chose the answer you did.

Then I gave it an analogy like:

fix : stable

------------------------

fortify : strong

captivate : attractive

deter : active

furrow : productive

mend : torn

And it would reply with its answer and reasoning (click “Show” to see all of it):

Okay, for this analogy:

agenda : conference

The relationship here is:

An agenda is a list that provides the plan or schedule for a conference. So a conference relies on and uses an agenda.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

map : trip

Okay, for this analogy:

agenda : conference

The relationship here is:

An agenda is a list that provides the plan or schedule for a conference. So a conference relies on and uses an agenda.

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship is:

map : trip

Because a trip relies on and uses a map. A map provides the plan and guidance for a trip, just as an agenda does for a conference.

The other choices do not show this same kind of relationship:

• Teacher : class - A teacher facilitates a class but a class does not rely on or use a teacher in the same direct way that a conference uses an agenda or a trip uses a map.
• Executive : employee - An executive oversees employees but employees do not directly rely on or make use of an executive the same way a conference uses an agenda or a trip uses a map.
• Man : woman - These do not have a direct facilitator/user relationship. They do not rely on each other in the same way.
• Agency : assignment - While an agency may give out assignments, an assignment does not directly rely on or use an agency in the way a conference uses an agenda or a trip uses a map.

So by analyzing each choice, map : trip is the one option that shows the closest relationship to the original pair’s dynamic of agenda : conference. Please let me know if this makes sense or if you have another analogy challenge for me!

One potential issue: I left the analogies and their possible answers in the sorted order from my word2vec post. This means the analogies word2vec got right were up first, with the correct answer in the first position. Then the ones word2vec had the correct answer second, and so on. I randomized a few of the analogies to check if this was a significnat problem, and it did not seem to be. If I had API access, I would have randomized the order of all the potential answers and run multiple tests.

## Results

Unsurprisingly, Claude did much better than Word2Vec. It got 25 out of 35 analogies correct1 compared to 8 out of 36 for Word2Vec.

The most frequent failure appears to be Claude identifying the right relationship, but then incorrectly applying it to choose the answer. For example this analogy (correct answer bold, Claude’s answer in green underline):

hospitable : courtesy
vindictive : spite
despondent : glee
leisurely : haste
morbid : cheerfulness
infamous : honor

With the following logic:

Okay, for the pair:

hospitable : courtesy

The relationship is:

Someone who is hospitable shows courtesy or kindness to their guests. So there is a relationship where one concept (hospitable) leads to or results in what the other represents (courtesy).

Based on this, the choice that shows a similar relationship where one concept results in what the other represents is:

despondent : glee

Because someone who is despondent lacks glee or cheer. Like hospitable leads to courtesy, despondent precludes glee.

Claude correctly identifies that hospitable implies showing courtesy, but then picks the opposite relation, someone is despondent lacks glee.

All of Claude’s answers are here.

1. I used one analogy in my instruction to Claude, which explains the discrepancy between 35 and 36.