Making LLMs Reason? The Intermediate Language Problem in Neurosymbolic Approaches

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17216v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:49:52 GMT
• Title: Making LLMs Reason? The Intermediate Language Problem in Neurosymbolic Approaches
• Authors: Alexander Beiser, David Penz,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the intermediate language problem, which is the problem of choosing a suitable formal language representation for neurosymbolic approaches.<n>We show a maximum difference in overall-accuracy of 53.20% and 49.26% in execution-accuracy.<n>When using the GPT4o-mini LLM we beat the state-of-the-art in overall-accuracy on the ProntoQA dataset by 21.20% and by 50.50% on the ProofWriter dataset.
• Score: 49.567092222782435
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Logical reasoning tasks manifest themselves as a challenge to Large Language Models (LLMs). Neurosymbolic approaches use LLMs to translate logical reasoning problems formulated in natural language into a formal intermediate language. Subsequently, the usage of symbolic reasoners yields reliable solving thereof. However, LLMs often fail in translation due to poorly chosen intermediate languages. We introduce the intermediate language problem, which is the problem of choosing a suitable formal language representation for neurosymbolic approaches. Theoretically, we argue that its origins lie in the inability of LLMs to distinguish syntax from semantics and the relative independence of the problem from its representation. We showcase its existence experimentally by contrasting two intermediate languages, Answer Set Programming and the Python Knowledge Engine. In addition, we demonstrate the effects of varying degrees of supplementary context information. Our results show a maximum difference in overall-accuracy of 53.20% and 49.26% in execution-accuracy. When using the GPT4o-mini LLM we beat the state-of-the-art in overall-accuracy on the ProntoQA dataset by 21.20% and by 50.50% on the ProofWriter dataset.

Related papers

• Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language [0.047888359248129786]
  Large Language models (LLMs) often exhibit limitations in their ability to reason reliably and flexibly. We propose a neurosymbolic approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode all relevant information from a problem statement as logical code statements. We then use a logic programming language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of explicit deductive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:34:18Z)
• 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)
• How Proficient Are Large Language Models in Formal Languages? An In-Depth Insight for Knowledge Base Question Answering [52.86931192259096]
  Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA) aims to answer natural language questions based on facts in knowledge bases. Recent works leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for logical form generation to improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T09:27:50Z)
• Frugal LMs Trained to Invoke Symbolic Solvers Achieve Parameter-Efficient Arithmetic Reasoning [36.8749786658624]
  Large Language Models (LLM) exhibit zero-shot mathematical reasoning capacity as a behavior emergent with scale. We show that small LMs can achieve reasonable arithmetic reasoning if arithmetic word problems are posed as a formalize-then-solve task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-09T13:20:49Z)
• 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)
• LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers [60.009969929857704]
  Logical reasoning is an important task for artificial intelligence with potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. In this work, we reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC. We observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:58:40Z)
• 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)
• PAL: Program-aided Language Models [112.94785609781503]
  We present Program-Aided Language models (PaL) to understand natural language problems. PaL offloads the solution step to a programmatic runtime such as a Python interpreter. We set new state-of-the-art results in all 12 benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T18:56:13Z)

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.