Addressing Logical Fallacies In Scientific Reasoning From Large Language Models: Towards a Dual-Inference Training Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04228v1
• Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 19:50:39 GMT
• Title: Addressing Logical Fallacies In Scientific Reasoning From Large Language Models: Towards a Dual-Inference Training Framework
• Authors: Peter B. Walker, Hannah Davidson, Aiden Foster, Matthew Lienert, Thomas Pardue, Dale Russell,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing and hold growing promise for advancing science, healthcare, and decision-making.<n>This paper makes two contributions. First, it demonstrates how existing LLMs from major platforms exhibit systematic weaknesses when reasoning in scientific domains with negation, counterexamples, or faulty premises.<n>Second, it introduces a dual-reasoning training framework that integrates affirmative generation with structured counterfactual denial.
• Score: 0.13854111346209866
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing and hold growing promise for advancing science, healthcare, and decision-making. Yet their training paradigms remain dominated by affirmation-based inference, akin to \textit{modus ponens}, where accepted premises yield predicted consequents. While effective for generative fluency, this one-directional approach leaves models vulnerable to logical fallacies, adversarial manipulation, and failures in causal reasoning. This paper makes two contributions. First, it demonstrates how existing LLMs from major platforms exhibit systematic weaknesses when reasoning in scientific domains with negation, counterexamples, or faulty premises \footnote{Code to recreate these experiments are at https://github.com/hannahdavidsoncollege-maker/ScientificReasoningForEnvironment-MedicineWithLLMs. Second, it introduces a dual-reasoning training framework that integrates affirmative generation with structured counterfactual denial. Grounded in formal logic, cognitive science, and adversarial training, this training paradigm formalizes a computational analogue of ``denying the antecedent'' as a mechanism for disconfirmation and robustness. By coupling generative synthesis with explicit negation-aware objectives, the framework enables models that not only affirm valid inferences but also reject invalid ones, yielding systems that are more resilient, interpretable, and aligned with human reasoning.

Related papers

• Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification [49.506412445511934]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking.<n>We introduce a formal logic verification-guided framework that dynamically interleaves formal symbolic verification with the natural language generation process.<n>We operationalize this framework via a novel two-stage training pipeline that synergizes formal logic verification-guided supervised fine-tuning and policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:01:25Z)
• 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)
• Causal Reflection with Language Models [0.08594140167290097]
  We introduce Causal Reflection, a framework that explicitly models causality as a dynamic function over state, action, time, and perturbation.<n>We define a formal Reflect mechanism that identifies mismatches between predicted and observed outcomes and generates causal hypotheses to revise the agent's internal model.<n>Our framework lays the theoretical groundwork for Causal Reflective agents that can adapt, self-correct, and communicate causal understanding in evolving environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T14:44:23Z)
• Deliberative Reasoning Network: An Uncertainty-Driven Paradigm for Belief-Tracked Inference with Pretrained Language Models [7.095344389368656]
  Deliberative Reasoning Network (DRN) is a novel paradigm that reframes logical reasoning from probability to uncertainty minimization.<n>DRN achieves intrinsic interpretability by explicitly tracking belief states and quantifying uncertainty for competing hypotheses.<n>We position DRN as a foundational, verifiable System 2 reasoning component for building more trustworthy AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T11:33:35Z)
• Learning to Reason via Mixture-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning [56.24256916896427]
  Mixture-of-Thought (MoT) is a framework that enables LLMs to reason across three complementary modalities: natural language, code, and truth-table.<n>MoT adopts a two-phase design: (1) self-evolving MoT training, which jointly learns from filtered, self-generated rationales across modalities; and (2) MoT inference, which fully leverages the synergy of three modalities to produce better predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:54Z)
• PEIRCE: Unifying Material and Formal Reasoning via LLM-Driven Neuro-Symbolic Refinement [13.042323420379187]
  PEIRCE is a neuro-symbolic framework designed to unify material and formal inference through an iterative conjecture-criticism process.<n>We demonstrate its capabilities in the domain of natural language explanation generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T09:04:47Z)
• 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)
• Tokens, the oft-overlooked appetizer: Large language models, the distributional hypothesis, and meaning [29.745218855471787]
  Tokenization is a necessary component within the current architecture of many language mod-els.<n>We argue that tokenization is necessary for reasonably human-like language performance.<n>We discuss implications for architectural choices, meaning construction, the primacy of language for thought.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-14T18:18:52Z)
• Lean-STaR: Learning to Interleave Thinking and Proving [53.923617816215774]
  We present Lean-STaR, a framework for training language models to produce informal thoughts prior to each step of a proof.<n>Lean-STaR achieves state-of-the-art results on the miniF2F-test benchmark within the Lean theorem proving environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-14T01:43:07Z)
• 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)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Leap-Of-Thought: Teaching Pre-Trained Models to Systematically Reason Over Implicit Knowledge [96.92252296244233]
  Large pre-trained language models (LMs) acquire some reasoning capacity, but this ability is difficult to control. We show that LMs can be trained to reliably perform systematic reasoning combining both implicit, pre-trained knowledge and explicit natural language statements. Our work paves a path towards open-domain systems that constantly improve by interacting with users who can instantly correct a model by adding simple natural language statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T17:02:20Z)
• CausaLM: Causal Model Explanation Through Counterfactual Language Models [33.29636213961804]
  CausaLM is a framework for producing causal model explanations using counterfactual language representation models. We show that language representation models such as BERT can effectively learn a counterfactual representation for a given concept of interest. A byproduct of our method is a language representation model that is unaffected by the tested concept.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-27T15:06:35Z)

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.