Inductive Learning of Logical Theories with LLMs: A Complexity-graded Analysis
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the ability of large language models (LLMs) to inductively learn logical theories of varying complexity
- Presents a complexity-graded analysis to understand the limitations and capabilities of LLMs in this task
- Introduces new datasets to benchmark inductive logical theory learning across different complexity levels
Plain English Explanation
This research paper examines how well large language models (LLMs) can learn logical theories through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations, which is an important cognitive ability.
The researchers create new datasets that test LLMs' ability to inductively learn logical theories at varying levels of complexity. This allows them to systematically analyze the strengths and limitations of LLMs when it comes to this type of logical reasoning.
By studying how LLMs perform on these increasingly complex logical reasoning tasks, the researchers hope to better understand the fundamental reasoning abilities of these powerful language models.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a complexity-graded analysis of inductive learning of logical theories using large language models (LLMs). The researchers create new datasets that test LLMs' ability to inductively learn logical theories at different levels of complexity, ranging from simple propositional logic to more advanced first-order logic.
The datasets are designed to systematically explore the limitations and capabilities of LLMs in this task. The researchers then evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on these datasets, providing insights into the types of logical theories that LLMs can effectively learn through inductive reasoning.
The findings from this complexity-graded analysis shed light on the underlying reasoning mechanisms of LLMs and inform future research on enhancing their logical reasoning abilities.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and systematic investigation of LLMs' inductive learning of logical theories, which is an important and understudied area of research. The complexity-graded analysis offers valuable insights, but the researchers acknowledge that the datasets and tasks may not fully capture the nuances of real-world logical reasoning.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential biases or limitations of the LLMs used in the experiments, which could influence the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to understand the specific strengths, weaknesses, and failure modes of LLMs in this domain.
Conclusion
This research paper presents a novel approach to studying the inductive learning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) when it comes to logical theories. By introducing complexity-graded datasets and analyzing LLM performance, the researchers shed light on the underlying reasoning mechanisms of these powerful models.
The findings have implications for the development of more robust and logically-grounded language models, which could have far-reaching applications in fields such as automated reasoning, knowledge representation, and commonsense reasoning. The insights from this research can also inform future directions in the ongoing quest to better understand the fundamental reasoning abilities of large language models.
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
Inductive Learning of Logical Theories with LLMs: A Complexity-graded Analysis
Jo~ao Pedro Gandarela, Danilo S. Carvalho, Andr'e Freitas
This work presents a novel systematic methodology to analyse the capabilities and limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) with feedback from a formal inference engine, on logic theory induction. The analysis is complexity-graded w.r.t. rule dependency structure, allowing quantification of specific inference challenges on LLM performance. Integrating LLMs with formal methods is a promising frontier in the Natural Language Processing field, as an important avenue for improving model inference control and explainability. In particular, inductive learning over complex sets of facts and rules, poses unique challenges for current autoregressive models, as they lack explicit symbolic grounding. While they can be complemented by formal systems, the properties delivered by LLMs regarding inductive learning, are not well understood and quantified. Empirical results indicate that the largest LLMs can achieve competitive results against a SOTA Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) system baseline, but also that tracking long predicate relationship chains is a more difficult obstacle than theory complexity for the LLMs.
Read more9/2/2024
🚀
0
Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs
Siyuan Wang, Zhongyu Wei, Yejin Choi, Xiang Ren
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive human-like performance across various reasoning tasks. However, their mastery of underlying inferential rules still falls short of human capabilities. To investigate this, we propose a logic scaffolding inferential rule generation framework, to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic, comprising both primitive and compositional rules across five domains. Our analysis of GPT-series models over a rule subset reveals significant gaps in LLMs' logic understanding compared to human performance, especially in compositional and structural complex rules with certain bias patterns. We further distill these rules into a smaller-scale inference engine for flexible rule generation and enhancing downstream reasoning. Through a multi-judger evaluation, our inference engine proves effective in generating accurate, complex and abstract conclusions and premises, and improve various commonsense reasoning tasks. Overall, our work sheds light on LLMs' limitations in grasping inferential rule and suggests ways to enhance their logical reasoning abilities~footnote{Code and data are available at url{https://github.com/SiyuanWangw/ULogic}.}.
Read more6/24/2024
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
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