Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents for Trustworthy Social Simulations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16081v1
• Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 18:25:35 GMT
• Title: Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents for Trustworthy Social Simulations
• Authors: Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, Vince Trencsenyi,
• Abstract summary: This study focuses on decision-making in game-theoretic scenarios as a model of human interaction. We introduce the Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents (LELMA) framework, a novel approach to enhance the trustworthiness of social simulations.
• Score: 3.5083201638203154
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce the Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents (LELMA) framework, a novel approach to enhance the trustworthiness of social simulations that utilize large language models (LLMs). While LLMs have gained attention as agents for simulating human behaviour, their applicability in this role is limited by issues such as inherent hallucinations and logical inconsistencies. LELMA addresses these challenges by integrating LLMs with symbolic AI, enabling logical verification of the reasoning generated by LLMs. This verification process provides corrective feedback, refining the reasoning output. The framework consists of three main components: an LLM-Reasoner for producing strategic reasoning, an LLM-Translator for mapping natural language reasoning to logic queries, and a Solver for evaluating these queries. This study focuses on decision-making in game-theoretic scenarios as a model of human interaction. Experiments involving the Hawk-Dove game, Prisoner's Dilemma, and Stag Hunt highlight the limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs, GPT-4 Omni and Gemini 1.0 Pro, in producing correct reasoning in these contexts. LELMA demonstrates high accuracy in error detection and improves the reasoning correctness of LLMs via self-refinement, particularly in GPT-4 Omni.

Related papers

• Guiding Reasoning in Small Language Models with LLM Assistance [23.3038074903744]
  Small Language Models cast doubt suitability for tasks demanding deep, multi-step logical deduction. This paper introduces a framework called Small Reasons, Large Hints, which selectively augments SLM reasoning with targeted guidance from large language models. Our experiments on mathematical reasoning datasets demonstrate that targeted external scaffolding significantly improves performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T06:32:45Z)
• A Modular Dataset to Demonstrate LLM Abstraction Capability [3.0899016152680754]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities but struggle with reasoning errors due to hallucinations and flawed logic. We introduce ArrangementPuzzle, a novel puzzle dataset with structured solutions and automated stepwise correctness verification. We trained a classifier model on LLM activations on this dataset and found that it achieved over 80% accuracy in predicting reasoning correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-22T04:25:30Z)
• Language Agents Meet Causality -- Bridging LLMs and Causal World Models [50.79984529172807]
  We propose a framework that integrates causal representation learning with large language models. This framework learns a causal world model, with causal variables linked to natural language expressions. We evaluate the framework on causal inference and planning tasks across temporal scales and environmental complexities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T18:36:37Z)
• RULEBREAKERS: Challenging LLMs at the Crossroads between Formal Logic and Human-like Reasoning [3.0648414540406703]
  We create RULEBREAKERS, the first dataset for rigorously evaluating the ability of large language models to recognize and respond to rulebreakers in a human-like manner.<n>We find that most models, including GPT-4o, achieve mediocre accuracy on RULEBREAKERS and exhibit some tendency to over-rigidly apply logical rules unlike what is expected from typical human reasoners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:48:16Z)
• 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)
• Alignment Between the Decision-Making Logic of LLMs and Human Cognition: A Case Study on Legal LLMs [43.67312098562139]
  This paper presents a method to evaluate the alignment between the decision-making logic of Large Language Models and human cognition. We quantify the interactions encoded by the LLM as primitive decision-making logic. Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the internal inference logic contains notable issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T08:33:39Z)
• Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Consistency in Large Language Models [31.558429029429863]
  We study logical consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a prerequisite for more reliable and trustworthy systems. We first propose a universal framework to quantify the logical consistency via three fundamental proxies: transitivity, commutativity and negation invariance. We then evaluate logical consistency, using the defined measures, of a wide range of LLMs, demonstrating that it can serve as a strong proxy for overall robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T04:34:04Z)
• 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)
• Toward Self-Improvement of LLMs via Imagination, Searching, and Criticizing [56.75702900542643]
  We introduce AlphaLLM for the self-improvements of Large Language Models. It integrates Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with LLMs to establish a self-improving loop. Our experimental results show that AlphaLLM significantly enhances the performance of LLMs without additional annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:21:34Z)
• Can Language Models Pretend Solvers? Logic Code Simulation with LLMs [3.802945676202634]
  Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in addressing logic problems. This study delves into a novel aspect, namely logic code simulation, which forces LLMs to emulate logical solvers in predicting the results of logical programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-24T11:27:16Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs [95.07757789781213]
  Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs.<n>One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps.<n>The other line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers.<n>We present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:26:21Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning [101.26814728062065]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown human-like reasoning abilities but still struggle with complex logical problems. This paper introduces a novel framework, Logic-LM, which integrates LLMs with symbolic solvers to improve logical problem-solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T22:25:38Z)

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.