Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17169v4
• Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 11:08:15 GMT
• Title: Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Authors: Wesley H. Holliday, Matthew Mandelkern, Cedegao E. Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We focus on inference patterns involving conditionals and modals. All the LLMs we tested make some basic mistakes with conditionals or modals. Even the best performing LLMs make basic errors in modal reasoning.
• Score: 1.999925939110439
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) are the topic of a growing body of research in AI and cognitive science. In this paper, we probe the extent to which twenty-nine LLMs are able to distinguish logically correct inferences from logically fallacious ones. We focus on inference patterns involving conditionals (e.g., 'If Ann has a queen, then Bob has a jack') and epistemic modals (e.g., 'Ann might have an ace', 'Bob must have a king'). These inferences have been of special interest to logicians, philosophers, and linguists, since they play a central role in the fundamental human ability to reason about distal possibilities. Assessing LLMs on these inferences is thus highly relevant to the question of how much the reasoning abilities of LLMs match those of humans. All the LLMs we tested make some basic mistakes with conditionals or modals, though zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting helps them make fewer mistakes. Even the best performing LLMs make basic errors in modal reasoning, display logically inconsistent judgments across inference patterns involving epistemic modals and conditionals, and give answers about complex conditional inferences that do not match reported human judgments. These results highlight gaps in basic logical reasoning in today's LLMs.

Related papers

• Have Large Language Models Learned to Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT Phase Transition [11.422434149376478]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been touted as AI models possessing advanced reasoning abilities. In theory, autoregressive LLMs with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) can perform more serial computations to solve complex reasoning tasks. Recent studies suggest that, despite this capacity, LLMs do not truly learn to reason but instead fit on statistical features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T20:57:36Z)
• Empowering LLMs with Logical Reasoning: A Comprehensive Survey [49.91445266392609]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable successes on various natural language tasks. Recent studies have found that there are still significant challenges to the logical reasoning abilities of LLMs. This paper summarizes and categorizes the main challenges into two aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:20:35Z)
• LLMs can implicitly learn from mistakes in-context [15.818061010632249]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can learn from mistakes in mathematical reasoning tasks when explanations are not provided. Surprisingly, we find that LLMs perform better, on average, when rationales are eliminated from the context. This approach also substantially outperforms chain-of-thought prompting in our evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:31:21Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the causal reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through the representative problem of inferring causal relationships from narratives. We find that even state-of-the-art language models rely on unreliable shortcuts, both in terms of the narrative presentation and their parametric knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• Inductive or Deductive? Rethinking the Fundamental Reasoning Abilities of LLMs [99.76347807139615]
  Reasoning encompasses two typical types: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Despite extensive research into the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), most studies have failed to rigorously differentiate between inductive and deductive reasoning. This raises an essential question: In LLM reasoning, which poses a greater challenge - deductive or inductive reasoning?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T18:47:11Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• 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)
• GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations [87.99872683336395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:23:36Z)
• Do Large Language Models Understand Logic or Just Mimick Context? [14.081178100662163]
  This paper investigates the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) on two logical reasoning datasets. It is found that LLMs do not truly understand logical rules; rather, in-context learning has simply enhanced the likelihood of these models arriving at the correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T12:12:35Z)
• CLadder: Assessing Causal Reasoning in Language Models [82.8719238178569]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can coherently reason about causality. We propose a new NLP task, causal inference in natural language, inspired by the "causal inference engine" postulated by Judea Pearl et al.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T15:12:12Z)
• 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)
• Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate [19.887103433032774]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in complex reasoning tasks. This work explores testing LLMs' reasoning by engaging with them in a debate-like conversation. We find that despite their impressive performance, LLMs like ChatGPT cannot maintain their beliefs in truth for a significant portion of examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:47:31Z)

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.