Generics and Default Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13718v1
• Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 10:28:53 GMT
• Title: Generics and Default Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Authors: James Ravi Kirkpatrick, Rachel Katharine Sterken,
• Abstract summary: This paper evaluates the capabilities of 28 large language models to reason with 20 defeasible reasoning patterns involving generic generalizations.<n>We find that while several frontier models handle many default reasoning problems well, performance varies widely across models and prompting styles.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper evaluates the capabilities of 28 large language models (LLMs) to reason with 20 defeasible reasoning patterns involving generic generalizations (e.g., 'Birds fly', 'Ravens are black') central to non-monotonic logic. Generics are of special interest to linguists, philosophers, logicians, and cognitive scientists because of their complex exception-permitting behaviour and their centrality to default reasoning, cognition, and concept acquisition. We find that while several frontier models handle many default reasoning problems well, performance varies widely across models and prompting styles. Few-shot prompting modestly improves performance for some models, but chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting often leads to serious performance degradation (mean accuracy drop -11.14%, SD 15.74% in models performing above 75% accuracy in zero-shot condition, temperature 0). Most models either struggle to distinguish between defeasible and deductive inference or misinterpret generics as universal statements. These findings underscore both the promise and limits of current LLMs for default reasoning.

Related papers

• On the Out-of-Distribution Generalization of Reasoning in Multimodal LLMs for Simple Visual Planning Tasks [56.98385132295952]
  We evaluate how well chain-of-thought approaches generalize on a simple planning task.<n>We find that reasoning traces which combine multiple text formats yield the best (and non-trivial) OOD generalization.<n> purely text-based models consistently outperform those utilizing image-based inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T09:51:40Z)
• Evaluating and Enhancing the Vulnerability Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [15.849480549367684]
  We propose DAGVul, a novel framework that models vulnerability reasoning as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) generation task.<n>By further introducing Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), we align model reasoning trace with program-intrinsic logic.<n>Our framework improves the reasoning F1-score by an average of 18.9% over all the baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T13:19:45Z)
• Stands to Reason: Investigating the Effect of Reasoning on Idiomaticity Detection [2.8330244018167945]
  We examine how reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models affect idiomaticity detection performance.<n>We find the effect of reasoning to be smaller and more varied than expected.<n>For smaller models, producing chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning increases performance from Math-tuned intermediate models, but not to the levels of the base models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T21:17:09Z)
• A Closer Look at Bias and Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Large (Vision) Language Models [53.18562650350898]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances performance of large language models.<n>We present the first comprehensive study of CoT faithfulness in large vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T18:55:05Z)
• Parameterized Argumentation-based Reasoning Tasks for Benchmarking Generative Language Models [1.249418440326334]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T19:04:34Z)
• Reasoning Towards Fairness: Mitigating Bias in Language Models through Reasoning-Guided Fine-Tuning [12.559028963968247]
  We investigate the crucial relationship between a model's reasoning ability and fairness.<n>We find that larger models with stronger reasoning abilities exhibit substantially lower stereotypical bias.<n>We introduce ReGiFT, a novel approach that extracts structured reasoning traces from advanced reasoning models and infuses them into models that lack such capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T03:21:51Z)
• Can Large Language Models Detect Errors in Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning? [57.17826305464394]
  o1-like models produce the long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning steps to improve the reasoning abilities of existing Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce the DeltaBench, including the generated long CoTs from different o1-like models for different reasoning tasks.<n>Based on DeltaBench, we first perform fine-grained analysis of the generated long CoTs to discover the effectiveness and efficiency of different o1-like models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T17:59:27Z)
• Self-supervised Analogical Learning using Language Models [59.64260218737556]
  We propose SAL, a self-supervised analogical learning framework.<n> SAL mimics the human analogy process and trains models to explicitly transfer high-quality symbolic solutions.<n>We show that the resulting models outperform base language models on a wide range of reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T02:31:26Z)
• 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 (LLMs)<n>JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures.<n>Our experimental results reveal that (i) state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning LLMs perform on par or better than the human average but significantly worse than the human ceiling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• Getting MoRE out of Mixture of Language Model Reasoning Experts [71.61176122960464]
  We propose a Mixture-of-Reasoning-Experts (MoRE) framework that ensembles diverse specialized language models. We specialize the backbone language model with prompts optimized for different reasoning categories, including factual, multihop, mathematical, and commonsense reasoning. Our human study confirms that presenting expert predictions and the answer selection process helps annotators more accurately calibrate when to trust the system's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:00:51Z)
• Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models [94.70184390935661]
  We propose Multimodal-CoT that incorporates language (text) and vision (images) modalities into a two-stage framework. Experimental results on ScienceQA and A-OKVQA benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T07:51:19Z)

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.