Generation of Explanations for Logic Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13455v1
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:22:04 GMT
- Title: Generation of Explanations for Logic Reasoning
- Authors: Yanyi Pu
- Abstract summary: The research is centred on employing GPT-3.5-turbo to automate the analysis of fortiori arguments.
This thesis makes significant contributions to the fields of artificial intelligence and logical reasoning.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: This thesis delves into a fortiori arguments in deductive reasoning,
underscoring their relevance in various domains such as law, philosophy, and
artificial intelligence. The research is centred on employing GPT-3.5-turbo to
automate the analysis of these arguments, with a focus on understanding
intricate reasoning processes, generating clear and coherent explanations, and
creating novel arguments. The methodology encompasses a series of tasks
including detailed reasoning, interpretation, and the augmentation of a
fortiori arguments. It involves meticulously identifying these arguments in
diverse contexts, differentiating comparative elements, and categorizing them
based on their logical structure.
Extensive experiments reveals the challenges encountered by GPT-3.5-turbo in
accurately detecting and classifying a fortiori arguments. Nevertheless, the
model demonstrates a performance that rivals specialized models, particularly
in extracting key components and interpreting underlying properties. The
integration of external information into the model's processing significantly
elevates the quality of the generated explanations. Additionally, the model
exhibits a noteworthy capability in augmenting arguments, thus contributing to
the enrichment of the data set.
Despite facing certain limitations, this thesis makes significant
contributions to the fields of artificial intelligence and logical reasoning.
It introduces novel methodologies, establishes a rigorous evaluation framework,
and provides deep insights that set the stage for future advancements in
automated logical reasoning. The findings and methodologies presented herein
not only underscore the potential of AI in complex reasoning tasks but also
highlight areas for future research and development.
Related papers
- Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes.
Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques.
We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z) - Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans.
Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z) - Igniting Language Intelligence: The Hitchhiker's Guide From
Chain-of-Thought Reasoning to Language Agents [80.5213198675411]
Large language models (LLMs) have dramatically enhanced the field of language intelligence.
LLMs leverage the intriguing chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning techniques, obliging them to formulate intermediate steps en route to deriving an answer.
Recent research endeavors have extended CoT reasoning methodologies to nurture the development of autonomous language agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-20T14:30:55Z) - A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.
Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z) - 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) - Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation
Frameworks (Technical Report) [17.9926469947157]
We propose a novel theory of Argument Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning.
AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest.
We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-25T15:36:33Z) - MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios.
Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components.
We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z) - From LSAT: The Progress and Challenges of Complex Reasoning [56.07448735248901]
We study the three challenging and domain-general tasks of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), including analytical reasoning, logical reasoning and reading comprehension.
We propose a hybrid reasoning system to integrate these three tasks and achieve impressive overall performance on the LSAT tests.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-02T05:43:03Z) - AR-LSAT: Investigating Analytical Reasoning of Text [57.1542673852013]
We study the challenge of analytical reasoning of text and introduce a new dataset consisting of questions from the Law School Admission Test from 1991 to 2016.
We analyze what knowledge understanding and reasoning abilities are required to do well on this task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-14T02:53:32Z) - Counterfactuals and Causability in Explainable Artificial Intelligence:
Theory, Algorithms, and Applications [0.20999222360659603]
Some researchers argued that for a machine to achieve a certain degree of human-level explainability, it needs to provide causally understandable explanations.
A specific class of algorithms that have the potential to provide causability are counterfactuals.
This paper presents an in-depth systematic review of the diverse existing body of literature on counterfactuals and causability for explainable artificial intelligence.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-07T03:11:39Z)
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.