Are Large Language Models Really Good Logical Reasoners? A Comprehensive Evaluation and Beyond
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores whether large language models (LLMs) are truly capable of logical reasoning across deductive, inductive, and abductive tasks
- Presents a comprehensive evaluation of LLM reasoning abilities using various test sets and metrics
- Provides insights into the strengths and limitations of LLMs as logical reasoners
Plain English Explanation
This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are genuinely skilled at logical reasoning, which involves drawing conclusions based on given information. The researchers conducted a thorough assessment of LLM reasoning abilities across three different types of logical reasoning: deductive (using strict logical rules), inductive (making generalizations from observations), and abductive (inferring the most likely explanation for observed facts).
The researchers used a variety of test sets and metrics to evaluate the LLMs' performance on these logical reasoning tasks. This allowed them to gain a comprehensive understanding of the models' strengths and weaknesses as logical reasoners.
The findings provide valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs when it comes to logical reasoning. This information can help guide the development of more reliable and robust reasoning abilities in LLMs, ultimately leading to improved performance on a wide range of tasks that require sound logical reasoning.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the logical reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) across three different types of logical reasoning:
- Deductive Reasoning: Evaluating the models' ability to draw conclusions based on strict logical rules and premises.
- Inductive Reasoning: Assessing the models' capacity to make generalizations from observations and examples.
- Abductive Reasoning: Examining the models' skill in inferring the most likely explanation for a given set of observations or facts.
To do this, the researchers utilized a variety of test sets and metrics, including:
- Deductive Reasoning: Evaluating performance on tasks like syllogistic reasoning, propositional logic, and first-order logic.
- Inductive Reasoning: Assessing the models' ability to perform tasks like analogical reasoning, inductive argument evaluation, and rule discovery.
- Abductive Reasoning: Examining the models' performance on tasks like scenario completion, event explanation, and hypothesis generation.
The findings from this comprehensive evaluation provide valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs as logical reasoners. The researchers identified both strengths and weaknesses in the models' reasoning abilities, which can inform the development of more reliable and robust reasoning capabilities in future LLM architectures.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledged several caveats and limitations in their evaluation of LLM reasoning abilities:
- Task Complexity: The researchers note that the logical reasoning tasks used in the evaluation may not fully capture the real-world complexity and nuance of logical reasoning.
- Generalization Challenges: While LLMs demonstrated some capabilities in logical reasoning, the researchers highlighted the need for further research to understand the models' ability to generalize these skills beyond the specific test sets.
- Contextual Factors: The researchers emphasized the importance of considering the role of contextual information and background knowledge in LLM reasoning, which was not fully addressed in the current study.
Additionally, the researchers recommend that future research should explore more systematic and comprehensive evaluations of LLM reasoning abilities, including the development of new benchmarks and testing paradigms that better capture the nuances of logical reasoning in real-world scenarios.
Conclusion
This comprehensive evaluation of large language models' logical reasoning abilities provides valuable insights into the current state of LLM reasoning capabilities. While the models demonstrated some strengths in deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning, the researchers identified key limitations and areas for further improvement.
The findings of this study can inform the development of more reliable and robust reasoning abilities in future LLM architectures, ultimately leading to improved performance on a wide range of tasks that require sound logical reasoning. As the field of large language models continues to evolve, this research serves as an important step in understanding the current capabilities and limitations of these powerful AI systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
New!Are Large Language Models Really Good Logical Reasoners? A Comprehensive Evaluation and Beyond
Fangzhi Xu, Qika Lin, Jiawei Han, Tianzhe Zhao, Jun Liu, Erik Cambria
Logical reasoning consistently plays a fundamental and significant role in the domains of knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a noteworthy innovation in natural language processing (NLP). However, the question of whether LLMs can effectively address the task of logical reasoning, which requires gradual cognitive inference similar to human intelligence, remains unanswered. To this end, we aim to bridge this gap and provide comprehensive evaluations in this paper. Firstly, to offer systematic evaluations, we select fifteen typical logical reasoning datasets and organize them into deductive, inductive, abductive and mixed-form reasoning settings. Considering the comprehensiveness of evaluations, we include 3 early-era representative LLMs and 4 trending LLMs. Secondly, different from previous evaluations relying only on simple metrics (e.g., emph{accuracy}), we propose fine-level evaluations in objective and subjective manners, covering both answers and explanations, including emph{answer correctness}, emph{explain correctness}, emph{explain completeness} and emph{explain redundancy}. Additionally, to uncover the logical flaws of LLMs, problematic cases will be attributed to five error types from two dimensions, i.e., emph{evidence selection process} and emph{reasoning process}. Thirdly, to avoid the influences of knowledge bias and concentrate purely on benchmarking the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a new dataset with neutral content. Based on the in-depth evaluations, this paper finally forms a general evaluation scheme of logical reasoning capability from six dimensions (i.e., emph{Correct}, emph{Rigorous}, emph{Self-aware}, emph{Active}, emph{Oriented} and emph{No hallucination}). It reflects the pros and cons of LLMs and gives guiding directions for future works.
Read more9/17/2024
0
Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey
Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning, leading to a lively debate on whether these models possess reasoning capabilities similar to humans. However, despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain. This uncertainty partly stems from the predominant focus on task performance, measured through shallow accuracy metrics, rather than a thorough investigation of the models' reasoning behavior. This paper seeks to address this gap by providing a comprehensive review of studies that go beyond task accuracy, offering deeper insights into the models' reasoning processes. Furthermore, we survey prevalent methodologies to evaluate the reasoning behavior of LLMs, emphasizing current trends and efforts towards more nuanced reasoning analyses. Our review suggests that LLMs tend to rely on surface-level patterns and correlations in their training data, rather than on sophisticated reasoning abilities. Additionally, we identify the need for further research that delineates the key differences between human and LLM-based reasoning. Through this survey, we aim to shed light on the complex reasoning processes within LLMs.
Read more8/7/2024
0
LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models
Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really reason over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied. However, the crucial skill pertaining to 'logical reasoning' has remained underexplored. Existing work investigating this reasoning ability of LLMs has focused only on a couple of inference rules (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) of propositional and first-order logic. Addressing the above limitation, we comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of LLMs on 25 different reasoning patterns spanning over propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logics. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce LogicBench, a natural language question-answering dataset focusing on the use of a single inference rule. We conduct detailed analysis with a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama-2, and Mistral using chain-of-thought prompting. Experimental results show that existing LLMs do not fare well on LogicBench; especially, they struggle with instances involving complex reasoning and negations. Furthermore, they sometimes overlook contextual information necessary for reasoning to arrive at the correct conclusion. We believe that our work and findings facilitate future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Mihir3009/LogicBench.
Read more6/7/2024
💬
0
Evaluating the Deductive Competence of Large Language Models
Spencer M. Seals, Valerie L. Shalin
The development of highly fluent large language models (LLMs) has prompted increased interest in assessing their reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. We investigate whether several LLMs can solve a classic type of deductive reasoning problem from the cognitive science literature. The tested LLMs have limited abilities to solve these problems in their conventional form. We performed follow up experiments to investigate if changes to the presentation format and content improve model performance. We do find performance differences between conditions; however, they do not improve overall performance. Moreover, we find that performance interacts with presentation format and content in unexpected ways that differ from human performance. Overall, our results suggest that LLMs have unique reasoning biases that are only partially predicted from human reasoning performance and the human-generated language corpora that informs them.
Read more4/16/2024