Are LLMs Rigorous Logical Reasoner? Empowering Natural Language Proof Generation with Contrastive Stepwise Decoding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06736v2
• Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 05:18:05 GMT
• Title: Are LLMs Rigorous Logical Reasoner? Empowering Natural Language Proof Generation with Contrastive Stepwise Decoding
• Authors: Ying Su, Xiaojin Fu, Mingwen Liu, Zhijiang Guo,
• Abstract summary: We introduce contrastive decoding to stepwise proof generation, making use of negative reasoning paths to strengthen the model's capacity for logical deduction.<n> Experiments on EntailmentBank underscore the success of our method in augmenting the proof planning abilities of language models.
• Score: 10.421832675327712
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Logical reasoning remains a pivotal component within the realm of artificial intelligence. The recent evolution of large language models (LLMs) has marked significant progress in this domain. The adoption of strategies like chain-of-thought (CoT) has enhanced the performance of LLMs across diverse reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, logical reasoning that involves proof planning, specifically those that necessitate the validation of explanation accuracy, continues to present stumbling blocks. In this study, we first evaluate the efficacy of LLMs with advanced CoT strategies concerning such tasks. Our analysis reveals that LLMs still struggle to navigate complex reasoning chains, which demand the meticulous linkage of premises to derive a cogent conclusion. To address this issue, we finetune a smaller-scale language model, equipping it to decompose proof objectives into more manageable subgoals. We also introduce contrastive decoding to stepwise proof generation, making use of negative reasoning paths to strengthen the model's capacity for logical deduction. Experiments on EntailmentBank underscore the success of our method in augmenting the proof planning abilities of language models.

Related papers

• Operational Robustness of LLMs on Code Generation [2.9232837969697965]
  It is now common practice in software development for large language models (LLMs) to be used to generate program code.<n>This paper is concerned in particular with how sensitive LLMs are to variations in descriptions of the coding tasks.<n>Existing techniques for evaluating this robustness are unsuitable for code generation because the input data space of natural language descriptions is discrete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T11:21:13Z)
• Reversal of Thought: Enhancing Large Language Models with Preference-Guided Reverse Reasoning Warm-up [9.42385235462794]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in reasoning tasks but face limitations in mathematical and complex logical reasoning. We propose Reversal of Thought (RoT), a novel framework aimed at enhancing the logical reasoning abilities of LLMs. RoT utilizes a Preference-Guided Reverse Reasoning warm-up strategy, which integrates logical symbols for pseudocode planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:44:28Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Logic-of-Thought: Injecting Logic into Contexts for Full Reasoning in Large Language Models [9.689096888732642]
  We propose Logic-of-Thought (LoT) prompting which employs propositional logic to generate expanded logical information descriptions. LoT boosts the performance of various prompting methods with a striking margin across five logical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T04:59:45Z)
• Misinforming LLMs: vulnerabilities, challenges and opportunities [4.54019093815234]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant advances in natural language processing, but their underlying mechanisms are often misunderstood. This paper argues that current LLM architectures are inherently untrustworthy due to their reliance on correlations of sequential patterns of word embedding vectors. Research into combining generative transformer-based models with fact bases and logic programming languages may lead to the development of trustworthy LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T10:35:49Z)
• Thought-Like-Pro: Enhancing Reasoning of Large Language Models through Self-Driven Prolog-based Chain-of-Thought [31.964412924094656]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance as general-purpose assistants. We introduce a novel learning framework, THOUGHT-LIKE-PRO, to facilitate learning and generalization across diverse reasoning tasks. Our empirical findings indicate that our proposed approach substantially enhances the reasoning abilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T18:52:10Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [52.03659714625452]
  Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really "reason" over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T21:08:49Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Language Models can be Logical Solvers [99.40649402395725]
  We introduce LoGiPT, a novel language model that directly emulates the reasoning processes of logical solvers. LoGiPT is fine-tuned on a newly constructed instruction-tuning dataset derived from revealing and refining the invisible reasoning process of deductive solvers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T16:23:50Z)
• DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
  We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy. First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights. We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z)
• MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoning [63.80739044622555]
  We introduce MuSR, a dataset for evaluating language models on soft reasoning tasks specified in a natural language narrative. This dataset has two crucial features. First, it is created through a novel neurosymbolic synthetic-to-natural generation algorithm. Second, our dataset instances are free text narratives corresponding to real-world domains of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T17:59:20Z)
• Assessing Step-by-Step Reasoning against Lexical Negation: A Case Study on Syllogism [19.590120229602103]
  Large language models (LLMs) take advantage of step-by-step reasoning instructions, e.g., chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. In this study, we inspect the step-by-step reasoning ability of LLMs with a focus on negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T12:40:41Z)
• Benchmarking and Explaining Large Language Model-based Code Generation: A Causality-Centric Approach [12.214585409361126]
  Large language models (LLMs)- based code generation is a complex and powerful black-box model. We propose a novel causal graph-based representation of the prompt and the generated code. We illustrate the insights that our framework can provide by studying over 3 popular LLMs with over 12 prompt adjustment strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T14:56:26Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• Contrastive Decoding Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [55.16503283583076]
  We show that Contrastive Decoding achieves large out-of-the-box improvements over greedy decoding on a variety of reasoning tasks. We show that Contrastive Decoding leads LLaMA-65B to outperform LLaMA 2, GPT-3.5 and PaLM 2-L on the HellaSwag commonsense reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-17T00:29:32Z)
• When Do Program-of-Thoughts Work for Reasoning? [51.2699797837818]
  We propose complexity-impacted reasoning score (CIRS) to measure correlation between code and reasoning abilities. Specifically, we use the abstract syntax tree to encode the structural information and calculate logical complexity. Code will be integrated into the EasyInstruct framework at https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyInstruct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T17:22:39Z)
• Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
  In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training. We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion. The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.