Reasoning is about giving reasons

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14488v1
• Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 07:26:53 GMT
• Title: Reasoning is about giving reasons
• Authors: Krunal Shah, Dan Roth,
• Abstract summary: We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
• Score: 55.56111618153049
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Convincing someone of the truth value of a premise requires understanding and articulating the core logical structure of the argument which proves or disproves the premise. Understanding the logical structure of an argument refers to understanding the underlying "reasons" which make up the proof or disproof of the premise - as a function of the "logical atoms" in the argument. While it has been shown that transformers can "chain" rules to derive simple arguments, the challenge of articulating the "reasons" remains. Not only do current approaches to chaining rules suffer in terms of their interpretability, they are also quite constrained in their ability to accommodate extensions to theoretically equivalent reasoning tasks - a model trained to chain rules cannot support abduction or identify contradictions. In this work we suggest addressing these shortcomings by identifying an intermediate representation (which we call the Representation of the Logical Structure (RLS) of the argument) that possesses an understanding of the logical structure of a natural language argument - the logical atoms in the argument and the rules incorporating them. Given the logical structure, reasoning is deterministic and easy to compute. Therefore, our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument, including arbitrary depths of reasoning, on-the-fly mistake rectification and interactive discussion with respect to an argument. We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies, thus supporting explanation generation and extending the reasoning capabilities significantly.

Related papers

• From Hypothesis to Premises: LLM-based Backward Logical Reasoning with Selective Symbolic Translation [8.104087344683604]
  We propose a novel framework, Hypothesis-driven Backward Logical Reasoning (HBLR)<n>The core idea is to integrate confidence-aware symbolic translation with hypothesis-driven backward reasoning.<n>HBLR consistently outperforms strong baselines in both accuracy and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T01:52:31Z)
• On the Complexity of the Grounded Semantics for Infinite Argumentation Frameworks [0.0]
  We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically computability and set theory, to analyze the grounded extension.<n>Finding this fixed-point requires transfinite iterations.<n>This shows a marked distinction from the finite case where the grounded extension is-time computable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T12:13:30Z)
• Dialogue-based Explanations for Logical Reasoning using Structured Argumentation [0.06138671548064355]
  We identify structural weaknesses of the state-of-the-art and propose a generic argumentation-based approach to address these problems.<n>Our work provides dialogue models as dialectic-proof procedures to compute and explain a query answer.<n>This allows us to construct dialectical proof trees as explanations, which are more expressive and arguably more intuitive than existing explanation formalisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T22:26:18Z)
• 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.<n>In our framework, symbolic expressions and logical rules are comprehensively integrated into the entire reasoning process.<n>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)
• Chain of Logic: Rule-Based Reasoning with Large Language Models [10.017812995997753]
  Rule-based reasoning enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition and recomposition. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T01:54:43Z)
• Formal Proofs as Structured Explanations: Proposing Several Tasks on Explainable Natural Language Inference [0.16317061277457]
  We propose a reasoning framework that can model the reasoning process underlying natural language inferences.<n>The framework is based on the semantic tableau method, a well-studied proof system in formal logic.<n>We show how it can be used to define natural language reasoning tasks with structured explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T01:24:09Z)
• Modeling Hierarchical Reasoning Chains by Linking Discourse Units and Key Phrases for Reading Comprehension [80.99865844249106]
  We propose a holistic graph network (HGN) which deals with context at both discourse level and word level, as the basis for logical reasoning. Specifically, node-level and type-level relations, which can be interpreted as bridges in the reasoning process, are modeled by a hierarchical interaction mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T07:34:27Z)
• 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)
• Certain and Uncertain Inference with Indicative Conditionals [0.3437656066916039]
  We develop a trivalent semantics for the truth conditions and the probability of the natural language conditional. We show systematic correspondences between trivalent and probabilistic representations of inferences in either framework. The result is a unified account of the semantics and indicative of conditionals that can be fruitfully applied to analyzing the validity of conditional inferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-17T20:06:00Z)
• Discourse-Aware Graph Networks for Textual Logical Reasoning [142.0097357999134]
  Passage-level logical relations represent entailment or contradiction between propositional units (e.g., a concluding sentence) We propose logic structural-constraint modeling to solve the logical reasoning QA and introduce discourse-aware graph networks (DAGNs) The networks first construct logic graphs leveraging in-line discourse connectives and generic logic theories, then learn logic representations by end-to-end evolving the logic relations with an edge-reasoning mechanism and updating the graph features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T14:38:49Z)
• Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
  We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning) Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation. Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z)

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.