Rulebreakers Challenge: Revealing a Blind Spot in Large Language Models' Reasoning with Formal Logic

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16502v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:48:16 GMT
• Title: Rulebreakers Challenge: Revealing a Blind Spot in Large Language Models' Reasoning with Formal Logic
• Authors: Jason Chan, Robert Gaizauskas, Zhixue Zhao,
• Abstract summary: This study introduces the concept of "rulebreakers", which refers to instances where logical entailment diverges from factually acceptable inference. We present RULEBREAKERS, a novel dataset for evaluating Large Language Models' ability to distinguish between rulebreakers and non-rulebreakers.
• Score: 3.0648414540406703
• License:
• Abstract: Formal logic has long been applied to natural language reasoning, but this approach can sometimes lead to conclusions that, while logically entailed, are factually inconsistent with the premises or are not typically inferred by humans. This study introduces the concept of "rulebreakers", which refers to instances where logical entailment diverges from factually acceptable inference. We present RULEBREAKERS, a novel dataset for evaluating Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to distinguish between rulebreakers and non-rulebreakers. Focusing on modus tollens and disjunctive syllogism, we assess six state-of-the-art LLMs using RULEBREAKERS, measuring their performance in terms of token-level exact accuracy and model confidence. Our findings reveal that while most models perform poorly to moderately in recognizing rulebreakers, they demonstrate a latent ability to distinguish rulebreakers when assessed by their confidence levels. Further analysis suggests that the failure to recognize rulebreakers is potentially associated with the models' world knowledge and their attention distribution patterns. This research highlights the limitation of LLMs' reasoning capabilities, and contributes to the ongoing discussion on reasoning in LLMs.

Related papers

• Benchmarking Defeasible Reasoning with Large Language Models -- Initial Experiments and Future Directions [0.36868085124383626]
  This paper proposes a benchmark that corresponds to various defeasible rule-based reasoning patterns. We modified an existing benchmark for defeasible logic reasoners by translating defeasible rules into text suitable for Large Language Models. We conducted preliminary experiments on nonmonotonic rule-based reasoning using ChatGPT and compared it with reasoning patterns defined by defeasible logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T12:36:23Z)
• 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)
• Towards Logically Consistent Language Models via Probabilistic Reasoning [14.317886666902822]
  Large language models (LLMs) are a promising venue for natural language understanding and generation tasks. LLMs are prone to generate non-factual information and to contradict themselves when prompted to reason about beliefs of the world. We introduce a training objective that teaches a LLM to be consistent with external knowledge in the form of a set of facts and rules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T12:23:57Z)
• Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs [87.34281749422756]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive human-like performance across various reasoning tasks. However, their mastery of underlying inferential rules still falls short of human capabilities. We propose a logic scaffolding inferential rule generation framework, to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:38:51Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)

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.