LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00757v3
• Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 14:34:37 GMT
• Title: LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models
• Authors: Yuxuan Wan, Wenxuan Wang, Yiliu Yang, Youliang Yuan, Jen-tse Huang, Pinjia He, Wenxiang Jiao, Michael R. Lyu,
• Abstract summary: 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%.
• Score: 63.14196038655506
• License:
• Abstract: We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GPT-4. Despite LLMs' prowess in tasks like writing assistance, code generation, and machine translation, assessing their ability to reason has been challenging. Traditional evaluations often prioritize accuracy on downstream tasks over direct assessments of reasoning processes. LogicAsker addresses this gap by employing a set of atomic reasoning skills grounded in propositional and predicate logic to systematically examine and improve the reasoning prowess of LLMs. Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29\% to 90\% across different models. Moreover, 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\%. To our knowledge, this is the first effort to utilize test case outcomes to effectively refine LLMs' formal reasoning capabilities. We make our code, data, and results publicly available (https://github.com/yxwan123/LogicAsker) to facilitate further research and replication of our findings.

Related papers

• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models. JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures. Our experimental results reveal that most state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs perform significantly worse than the human average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Reason from Fallacy: Enhancing Large Language Models' Logical Reasoning through Logical Fallacy Understanding [40.2816930342597]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated good performance in many reasoning tasks. But they still struggle with some complicated reasoning tasks including logical reasoning. We propose five concrete tasks from three cognitive dimensions of WHAT, WHY, and HOW in this paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T08:38:03Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• 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)
• 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.