Linear Reasoning vs. Proof by Cases: Obstacles for Large Language Models in FOL Problem Solving

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.20973v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 14:53:34 GMT
• Title: Linear Reasoning vs. Proof by Cases: Obstacles for Large Language Models in FOL Problem Solving
• Authors: Yuliang Ji, Fuchen Shen, Jian Wu, Qiujie Xie, Yue Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel first-order logic (FOL) dataset named PC-FOL, annotated by professional mathematicians.<n>All instances in this dataset are equipped with a manually written natural language proof, clearly distinguishing it from conventional linear reasoning datasets.
• Score: 11.939133563702066
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: To comprehensively evaluate the mathematical reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), researchers have introduced abundant mathematical reasoning datasets. However, most existing datasets primarily focus on linear reasoning, neglecting other parts such as proof by contradiction and proof by cases, which are crucial for investigating LLMs' reasoning abilities. To address this limitation, we first introduce a novel first-order logic (FOL) dataset named PC-FOL, annotated by professional mathematicians, focusing on case-based reasoning problems. All instances in this dataset are equipped with a manually written natural language proof, clearly distinguishing it from conventional linear reasoning datasets. Our experimental results over leading LLMs demonstrate a substantial performance gap between linear reasoning and case-based reasoning problems. To further investigate this phenomenon, we provide a theoretical analysis grounded in graphical model, which provides an explanation for the observed disparity between the two types of reasoning problems. We hope this work can reveal the core challenges in the field of automated natural language mathematical proof generation, paving the way for future research.

Related papers

• Are Language Models Efficient Reasoners? A Perspective from Logic Programming [109.47572890883248]
  Modern language models (LMs) exhibit strong deductive reasoning capabilities, yet standard evaluations emphasize correctness while overlooking a key aspect of human-like reasoning: efficiency.<n>We propose a framework for assessing LM reasoning efficiency through the lens of logic programming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T15:30:31Z)
• Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Abilities of Large Reasoning Models [15.009205651973666]
  We introduce LogiEval, a benchmark for evaluating logical reasoning in large reasoning models.<n>LogiEval spans diverse reasoning types (deductive, inductive, analogical, and abductive) and task formats (e.g., logical sequence, argument analysis)<n>Our experiments demonstrate that modern reasoning models excel at 4-choice argument analysis problems and analogical reasoning, surpassing human performance.<n>Our analysis reveals that human performance does not mirror model failure distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T05:36:14Z)
• Hypothesis-Driven Theory-of-Mind Reasoning for Large Language Models [76.6028674686018]
  We introduce thought-tracing, an inference-time reasoning algorithm to trace the mental states of agents.<n>Our algorithm is modeled after the Bayesian theory-of-mind framework.<n>We evaluate thought-tracing on diverse theory-of-mind benchmarks, demonstrating significant performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:08:50Z)
• 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)
• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning.<n>This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation.<n>We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• Enhancing Logical Reasoning in Large Language Models through Graph-based Synthetic Data [53.433309883370974]
  This work explores the potential and limitations of using graph-based synthetic reasoning data as training signals to enhance Large Language Models' reasoning capabilities.<n>Our experiments, conducted on two established natural language reasoning tasks, demonstrate that supervised fine-tuning with synthetic graph-based reasoning data effectively enhances LLMs' reasoning performance without compromising their effectiveness on other standard evaluation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T03:39:09Z)
• A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences [5.141416267381492]
  We consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. We investigate the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning on syllogistic reasoning. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by cognitive science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T08:59:04Z)
• Zero-shot Causal Graph Extrapolation from Text via LLMs [50.596179963913045]
  We evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to infer causal relations from natural language. LLMs show competitive performance in a benchmark of pairwise relations without needing (explicit) training samples. We extend our approach to extrapolating causal graphs through iterated pairwise queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T13:14:38Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

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.