Benchmarking LLM Competence on Logical Inference over Probability Operators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27405v3
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 19:14:45 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking LLM Competence on Logical Inference over Probability Operators
• Abstract summary: Large language models are increasingly evaluated on logical reasoning tasks.<n>We introduce a benchmark for reasoning over probability operators.<n>We evaluate 29 models and find that most show answer biases independent of the logical form.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Both expressions of uncertainty and inferences are ubiquitous in natural language, and valid inferences over natural-language expressions of uncertainty are necessary for not only everyday conversations but also for high-stakes domains such as medicine and law. While large language models are increasingly evaluated on logical reasoning tasks, disentangling principled, symbolic reasoning from clever surface-level pattern matching is fraught with difficulty. We introduce a benchmark for reasoning over probability operators--inference over sentences with gradable epistemic modals (e.g., probably, might, must) containing 14,320 procedurally-generated English prompts across fifteen inference templates, systematically varying question form, negation strategy, and surface content. Evaluating 29 models, we find that most show answer biases independent of the logical form, a systematic preference for Yes or No. We summarize this with a competence floor: the worse of a model's accuracy on Yes-correct and No-correct items. Only 9 of 29 models exceed random chance. We also test variations in question form, verb phrases/activity, and both the gender and origin of names used in the prompts, finding biases across every axis.

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)
• DivLogicEval: A Framework for Benchmarking Logical Reasoning Evaluation in Large Language Models [58.439517684779936]
  This paper proposes a new classical logic benchmark DivLogicEval, consisting of natural sentences composed of diverse statements in a counterintuitive way.<n>To ensure a more reliable evaluation, we also introduce a new evaluation metric that mitigates the influence of bias and randomness inherent in Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T04:40:46Z)
• Large Language Model probabilities cannot distinguish between possible and impossible language [0.11726720776908521]
  We use model-internal representations to tap directly into the way Large Language Models represent the 'grammatical-ungrammatical' distinction.<n>We predict that if string-probabilities can function as proxies for the limits of grammar, the ungrammatical condition will stand out among the conditions that involve linguistic violations.<n>Our results do not reveal a unique surprisal signature for ungrammatical prompts, as the semantically and pragmatically odd conditions consistently show higher surprisal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T16:17:48Z)
• QUITE: Quantifying Uncertainty in Natural Language Text in Bayesian Reasoning Scenarios [15.193544498311603]
  We present QUITE, a dataset of real-world Bayesian reasoning scenarios with categorical random variables and complex relationships. We conduct an extensive set of experiments, finding that logic-based models outperform out-of-the-box large language models on all reasoning types. Our results provide evidence that neuro-symbolic models are a promising direction for improving complex reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T12:44:59Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• Scaling Synthetic Logical Reasoning Datasets with Context-Sensitive Declarative Grammars [0.6537995248511139]
  We present a declarative framework with flexible context-sensitive rules binding multiple languages. We construct first-order logic problems by selecting up to 32 premises and one hypothesis. We demonstrate that using semantic constraints during generation and careful English verbalization of predicates enhances logical reasoning without hurting natural English tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T18:10:49Z)
• How often are errors in natural language reasoning due to paraphrastic variability? [29.079188032623605]
  We propose a metric for evaluating the paraphrastic consistency of natural language reasoning models. We mathematically connect this metric to the proportion of a model's variance in correctness attributable to paraphrasing. We collect ParaNLU, a dataset of 7,782 human-written and validated paraphrased reasoning problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T20:11:32Z)
• UNcommonsense Reasoning: Abductive Reasoning about Uncommon Situations [62.71847873326847]
  We investigate the ability to model unusual, unexpected, and unlikely situations. Given a piece of context with an unexpected outcome, this task requires reasoning abductively to generate an explanation. We release a new English language corpus called UNcommonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:00:55Z)
• Teaching Probabilistic Logical Reasoning to Transformers [21.335836561959887]
  We evaluate the capability of transformer-based language models in making inferences over uncertain text. We propose a novel end-to-end fine-tuning approach, Probabilistic Constraint Training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T16:08:20Z)
• Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation [37.37606905433334]
  We show that measuring uncertainty in natural language is challenging because of "semantic equivalence" We introduce semantic entropy -- an entropy which incorporates linguistic invariances created by shared meanings. Our method is unsupervised, uses only a single model, and requires no modifications to off-the-shelf language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T20:10:07Z)
• Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations [71.2950434944196]
  We develop Maieutic Prompting, which infers a correct answer to a question even from the noisy and inconsistent generations of language models. Maieutic Prompting achieves up to 20% better accuracy than state-of-the-art prompting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T06:36:42Z)
• 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.