Parameterized Argumentation-based Reasoning Tasks for Benchmarking Generative Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01539v1
• Date: Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:34 GMT
• Title: Parameterized Argumentation-based Reasoning Tasks for Benchmarking Generative Language Models
• Authors: Cor Steging, Silja Renooij, Bart Verheij,
• Abstract summary: Generative large language models as tools in the legal domain have the potential to improve the justice system.<n>However, the reasoning behavior of current generative models is brittle and poorly understood, hence cannot be responsibly applied in the domains of law and evidence.<n>We introduce an approach for creating benchmarks that can be used to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of generative language models.
• Score: 1.249418440326334
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative large language models as tools in the legal domain have the potential to improve the justice system. However, the reasoning behavior of current generative models is brittle and poorly understood, hence cannot be responsibly applied in the domains of law and evidence. In this paper, we introduce an approach for creating benchmarks that can be used to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of generative language models. These benchmarks are dynamically varied, scalable in their complexity, and have formally unambiguous interpretations. In this study, we illustrate the approach on the basis of witness testimony, focusing on the underlying argument attack structure. We dynamically generate both linear and non-linear argument attack graphs of varying complexity and translate these into reasoning puzzles about witness testimony expressed in natural language. We show that state-of-the-art large language models often fail in these reasoning puzzles, already at low complexity. Obvious mistakes are made by the models, and their inconsistent performance indicates that their reasoning capabilities are brittle. Furthermore, at higher complexity, even state-of-the-art models specifically presented for reasoning capabilities make mistakes. We show the viability of using a parametrized benchmark with varying complexity to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of generative language models. As such, the findings contribute to a better understanding of the limitations of the reasoning capabilities of generative models, which is essential when designing responsible AI systems in the legal domain.

Related papers

• Implicit Reasoning in Transformers is Reasoning through Shortcuts [10.351525484558376]
  Test-time compute is emerging as a new paradigm for enhancing language models' complex multi-step reasoning capabilities.<n>We investigate how language models perform implicit reasoning in multi-step tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T17:58:31Z)
• LINGOLY-TOO: Disentangling Reasoning from Knowledge with Templatised Orthographic Obfuscation [1.2576388595811496]
  We introduce LINGOLY-TOO, a challenging reasoning benchmark grounded in natural language.<n>We permute reasoning problems written in real languages to generate numerous question variations.<n>Experiments and analyses show that models can circumvent reasoning and answer from prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T19:57:47Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models.<n>JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures.<n>Our experimental results reveal that most state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs perform significantly worse than the human average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• "Let's Argue Both Sides": Argument Generation Can Force Small Models to Utilize Previously Inaccessible Reasoning Capabilities [0.8999666725996974]
  We propose Argument Generation as a method of forcing models to utilize their reasoning capabilities. Our method involves the generation of arguments for each possible inference result, and asking the end model to rank the generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T19:49:30Z)
• 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)
• Case-Based Reasoning with Language Models for Classification of Logical Fallacies [3.511369967593153]
  We propose a Case-Based Reasoning method that classifies new cases of logical fallacy. Our experiments indicate that Case-Based Reasoning improves the accuracy and generalizability of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T17:49:16Z)
• ALERT: Adapting Language Models to Reasoning Tasks [43.8679673685468]
  ALERT is a benchmark and suite of analyses for assessing language models' reasoning ability. ALERT provides a test bed to asses any language model on fine-grained reasoning skills. We find that language models learn more reasoning skills during finetuning stage compared to pretraining state.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T05:15:41Z)
• 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)
• Logically Consistent Adversarial Attacks for Soft Theorem Provers [110.17147570572939]
  We propose a generative adversarial framework for probing and improving language models' reasoning capabilities. Our framework successfully generates adversarial attacks and identifies global weaknesses. In addition to effective probing, we show that training on the generated samples improves the target model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T19:10:12Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)

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.