Explaining Necessary Truths

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11251v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:11:39 GMT
• Title: Explaining Necessary Truths
• Authors: Gülce Kardeş, Simon DeDeo,
• Abstract summary: We present a framework, based in computational complexity, where explanations for deductive truths co-emerge with discoveries of simplifying steps during the search process. We simulate human subjects, using GPT-4o, presented with SAT puzzles of varying complexity and reasonableness, validating our theory and showing how its predictions can be tested in future human studies.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Knowing the truth is rarely enough -- we also seek out reasons why the fact is true. While much is known about how we explain contingent truths, we understand less about how we explain facts, such as those in mathematics, that are true as a matter of logical necessity. We present a framework, based in computational complexity, where explanations for deductive truths co-emerge with discoveries of simplifying steps during the search process. When such structures are missing, we revert, in turn, to error-based reasons, where a (corrected) mistake can serve as fictitious, but explanatory, contingency-cause: not making the mistake serves as a reason why the truth takes the form it does. We simulate human subjects, using GPT-4o, presented with SAT puzzles of varying complexity and reasonableness, validating our theory and showing how its predictions can be tested in future human studies.

Related papers

• Aristotle: Mastering Logical Reasoning with A Logic-Complete Decompose-Search-Resolve Framework [93.59256448185954]
  We propose a logic-complete reasoning framework, Aristotle, with three key components: Logical Decomposer, Logical Search Router, and Logical Resolver. In our framework, symbolic expressions and logical rules are comprehensively integrated into the entire reasoning process. The experimental results on several datasets demonstrate that Aristotle consistently outperforms state-of-the-art reasoning frameworks in both accuracy and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-22T10:14:09Z)
• Liar, Liar, Logical Mire: A Benchmark for Suppositional Reasoning in Large Language Models [25.732397636695882]
  We introduce $textitTruthQuest$, a benchmark for suppositional reasoning based on the principles of knights and knaves puzzles. Evaluations show that large language models like Llama 3 and Mixtral-8x7B exhibit significant difficulties solving these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T12:24:22Z)
• Inference of Abstraction for a Unified Account of Reasoning and Learning [0.0]
  We give a simple theory of probabilistic inference for a unified account of reasoning and learning. We simply model how data cause symbolic knowledge in terms of its satisfiability in formal logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T09:43:35Z)
• Cognitive Dissonance: Why Do Language Model Outputs Disagree with Internal Representations of Truthfulness? [53.98071556805525]
  Neural language models (LMs) can be used to evaluate the truth of factual statements. They can be queried for statement probabilities, or probed for internal representations of truthfulness. Past work has found that these two procedures sometimes disagree, and that probes tend to be more accurate than LM outputs. This has led some researchers to conclude that LMs "lie" or otherwise encode non-cooperative communicative intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T18:59:14Z)
• A Simple Generative Model of Logical Reasoning and Statistical Learning [0.6853165736531939]
  Statistical learning and logical reasoning are two major fields of AI expected to be unified for human-like machine intelligence. We here propose a simple Bayesian model of logical reasoning and statistical learning. We simply model how data causes symbolic knowledge in terms of its satisfiability in formal logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T16:34:51Z)
• A Theory of Inaccessible Information [0.0]
  We develop a theory in which experimentally accessible statements are a union of a fixed minimum number of inaccessible statements. Surprisingly, the simplest model of theory of inaccessible information is the qubit in quantum mechanics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T19:30:07Z)
• Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models [0.0]
  We discuss the struggle for truth in AI systems and the general responses to date. It then investigates the production of truth in InstructGPT, a large language model. We argue that these same logics and inconsistencies play out in ChatGPT, reiterating truth as a non-trivial problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-28T02:47:50Z)
• 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)
• Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations [71.2950434944196]
  We develop Maieutic Prompting, which infers a correct answer to a question even from the noisy and inconsistent generations of language models. Maieutic Prompting achieves up to 20% better accuracy than state-of-the-art prompting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T06:36:42Z)
• On the Paradox of Learning to Reason from Data [86.13662838603761]
  We show that BERT can attain near-perfect accuracy on in-distribution test examples while failing to generalize to other data distributions over the exact same problem space. Our study provides an explanation for this paradox: instead of learning to emulate the correct reasoning function, BERT has in fact learned statistical features that inherently exist in logical reasoning problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T17:56:48Z)
• Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
  We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z)

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.