Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs

Overview

• Researchers propose a framework to study the limitations of large language models (LLMs) in understanding inferential rules
• They develop an inferential rule base, ULogic, comprising primitive and compositional rules across five domains
• Analysis reveals significant gaps in LLMs' logic understanding compared to humans, especially for complex rules with certain biases
• The researchers distill these rules into a smaller-scale inference engine to enhance downstream reasoning tasks

Plain English Explanation

Researchers have found that while large language models can perform impressively on various tasks, they still struggle to fully grasp the underlying logical rules that humans use for reasoning. To investigate this, the researchers developed a framework called "logic scaffolding" to create a comprehensive set of inferential rules, called ULogic, covering different domains.

By testing popular LLM models on a subset of these rules, the researchers discovered significant gaps in the models' understanding of logical reasoning, particularly for more complex rules with certain biases. To address this, they distilled the rules into a smaller-scale "inference engine" that can generate accurate, abstract conclusions and premises, and enhance commonsense reasoning abilities.

Overall, this work sheds light on the limitations of current LLMs when it comes to grasping the nuances of logical reasoning, and provides a path forward for enhancing their logical reasoning capabilities through more targeted training and the use of specialized inference engines.

Technical Explanation

The researchers propose a "logic scaffolding" framework to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic, comprising both primitive and compositional rules across five domains: arithmetic, spatial, temporal, causal, and categorical reasoning. They analyze the performance of GPT-series models on a subset of these rules and find significant gaps in their logic understanding compared to human performance, especially for compositional and structurally complex rules with certain bias patterns.

To address this, the researchers distill the rules into a smaller-scale inference engine that can flexibly generate accurate, complex, and abstract conclusions and premises. Through a multi-judger evaluation, they demonstrate the effectiveness of this inference engine in improving various commonsense reasoning tasks.

Critical Analysis

The researchers provide a thorough and systematic approach to investigating the limitations of LLMs in logical reasoning. By developing a comprehensive rule base and testing LLMs on a diverse set of rules, they are able to identify specific areas where the models fall short, such as in handling compositional and structurally complex rules.

However, the paper does not delve into the potential reasons why LLMs struggle with certain types of rules. It would be valuable to explore whether these limitations are inherent to the current architectures and training approaches of LLMs, or if they can be overcome through further advancements in model design and training techniques.

Additionally, while the researchers demonstrate the effectiveness of their inference engine in improving commonsense reasoning tasks, it would be interesting to see how this engine performs in more real-world applications and whether its benefits can be seamlessly integrated into existing LLM-based systems.

Conclusion

This research highlights the significant gaps in LLMs' understanding of logical reasoning, particularly for more complex and compositional rules. By developing a comprehensive rule base and an inference engine, the researchers have provided a framework for enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of these powerful models, which could have far-reaching implications for their deployment in real-world applications that require robust and reliable reasoning abilities.