Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09802v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:26:21 GMT
• Title: Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs
• Authors: Sen Yang, Xin Li, Leyang Cui, Lidong Bing, Wai Lam
• Abstract summary: We present a neuro-symbolic integration method, in which a neural LLM is used to represent the knowledge of the problem. An LLM-free symbolic solver is adopted to do deliberative reasoning using the knowledge.
• Score: 102.00359477458029
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Though prompting LLMs with various reasoning structures produces reasoning proofs along with answers, these proofs are not ensured to be causal and reliable due to the inherent defects of LLMs. Tracking such deficiencies, we present a neuro-symbolic integration method, in which a neural LLM is used to represent the knowledge of the problem while an LLM-free symbolic solver is adopted to do deliberative reasoning using the knowledge. Specifically, our customized meta-interpreters allow the production of reasoning proofs and support flexible search strategies. These reasoning proofs are ensured to be causal and reliable because of the deterministic executing nature of the symbolic solvers. Empirically, on ProofWriter, our method surpasses the CoT baseline by nearly double in accuracy and more than triple in proof similarity. On GSM8K, our method also shows accuracy improvements and nearly doubled proof similarity. Our code is released at https://github.com/DAMO-NLP-SG/CaRing

Related papers

• SoftCoT: Soft Chain-of-Thought for Efficient Reasoning with LLMs [48.28847964704554]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to solve complex reasoning tasks. We propose a novel approach for continuous-space reasoning that does not require modifying the underlying LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:52:29Z)
• Reasoning-as-Logic-Units: Scaling Test-Time Reasoning in Large Language Models Through Logic Unit Alignment [21.12989936864145]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has shown promise in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We propose Reasoning-as-Logic-Units (RaLU), which constructs a more reliable reasoning path by aligning logical units between the generated program and their corresponding NL descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T08:23:18Z)
• Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
  We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question. To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA) Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z)
• Automated Theorem Provers Help Improve Large Language Model Reasoning [0.18416014644193066]
  We show how accuracy can be improved with a neuro-symbolic architecture. We define a framework of syntactic and semantic error categories. We extend our method with capabilities for automatically correcting syntactic and semantic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T01:03:56Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models as an Indirect Reasoner: Contrapositive and Contradiction for Automated Reasoning [74.90592233107712]
  We propose a Direct-Indirect Reasoning (DIR) method, which considers Direct Reasoning (DR) and Indirect Reasoning (IR) as multiple parallel reasoning paths that are merged to derive the final answer. Our DIR method is simple yet effective and can be straightforwardly integrated with existing variants of CoT methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:41:12Z)
• Are LLMs Rigorous Logical Reasoner? Empowering Natural Language Proof Generation with Contrastive Stepwise Decoding [10.421832675327712]
  We 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T05:12:49Z)
• LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers [60.009969929857704]
  Logical reasoning is an important task for artificial intelligence with potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. In this work, we reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC. We observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:58:40Z)
• Language Models Are Greedy Reasoners: A Systematic Formal Analysis of Chain-of-Thought [10.524051272257614]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities given chain-of-thought prompts. We present a new synthetic question-answering dataset called PrOntoQA, where each example is generated as a synthetic world model. This allows us to parse the generated chain-of-thought into symbolic proofs for formal analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-03T21:34:32Z)

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.