NL2FOL: Translating Natural Language to First-Order Logic for Logical Fallacy Detection
2405.02318
0
0
šæ
Abstract
Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. Automatically detecting logical fallacies has important applications in tracking misinformation and validating claims. In this paper, we design a process to reliably detect logical fallacies by translating natural language to First-order Logic (FOL) step-by-step using Large Language Models (LLMs). We then utilize Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers to reason about the validity of the formula and classify inputs as either a fallacy or valid statement. Our model also provides a novel means of utilizing LLMs to interpret the output of the SMT solver, offering insights into the counter-examples that illustrate why a given sentence is considered a logical fallacy. Our approach is robust, interpretable and does not require training data or fine-tuning. We evaluate our model on a mixed dataset of fallacies and valid sentences. The results demonstrate improved performance compared to end-to-end LLMs, with our classifier achieving an F1-score of 71% on the Logic dataset. The approach is able to generalize effectively, achieving an F1-score of 73% on the challenge set, LogicClimate, outperforming state-of-the-art models by 21% despite its much smaller size.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a novel approach for automatically detecting logical fallacies in natural language using Large Language Models (LLMs) and Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers.
- The key idea is to translate natural language statements into First-order Logic (FOL) representations, which can then be analyzed for logical validity using SMT solvers.
- The approach aims to provide a robust, interpretable, and generalized method for identifying logical fallacies without requiring specialized training data or fine-tuning.
Plain English Explanation
Logical fallacies are common mistakes in reasoning that can weaken or undermine the logic of an argument. Automatically detecting logical fallacies has important applications in tracking misinformation and validating claims.
This paper proposes a process to reliably identify logical fallacies by translating natural language statements into a formal logical representation called First-order Logic (FOL). Large Language Models (LLMs) are used to perform this step-by-step translation, converting the natural language into a structured logical formula.
The researchers then use Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers to analyze the validity of the resulting logical formula. If the formula is deemed invalid, the statement is classified as a logical fallacy. The approach also provides a novel way to interpret the output of the SMT solver, offering insights into why a given sentence is considered a logical fallacy.
This method is designed to be robust, interpretable, and generalizable, without requiring extensive training data or fine-tuning. The researchers evaluate their model on a diverse dataset of fallacies and valid statements, demonstrating improved performance compared to end-to-end LLM-based approaches.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a multi-step process for detecting logical fallacies in natural language. First, they use Large Language Models (LLMs) to translate natural language statements into First-order Logic (FOL) representations. This step-by-step translation is designed to capture the logical structure of the input.
Next, the researchers leverage Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solvers to reason about the validity of the resulting FOL formula. If the formula is deemed unsatisfiable (i.e., logically invalid), the input statement is classified as a logical fallacy.
The model also provides a novel approach for interpreting the output of the SMT solver, generating insights into the counter-examples that illustrate why a given sentence is considered a logical fallacy. This interpretability is a key feature of the proposed method.
The researchers evaluate their model on a mixed dataset of fallacies and valid sentences, demonstrating improved performance compared to end-to-end LLM-based approaches. Their classifier achieves an F1-score of 71% on the Logic dataset, and an impressive F1-score of 73% on the challenge set, LogicClimate, outperforming state-of-the-art models by a significant margin.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a promising approach for automatically detecting logical fallacies in natural language, with several notable strengths. The use of LLMs for translating natural language to FOL, combined with SMT solvers for logical reasoning, offers a robust and interpretable solution that does not require extensive training data or fine-tuning.
However, the researchers acknowledge that their approach has some limitations. The translation from natural language to FOL may not always be perfect, and the ability of the SMT solver to identify complex logical fallacies is dependent on the completeness of the FOL representation. Additionally, the evaluation datasets, while diverse, may not fully capture the breadth of logical fallacies that can occur in real-world scenarios.
Further research could explore ways to improve the natural language to FOL translation, potentially through the use of more advanced LLM techniques or the incorporation of domain-specific knowledge. Additionally, expanding the evaluation to include a wider range of logical fallacies and real-world use cases would help to better assess the generalizability and practical applicability of the proposed approach.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel approach for automatically detecting logical fallacies in natural language, leveraging the power of Large Language Models and Satisfiability Modulo Theory solvers. The proposed method offers a robust, interpretable, and generalized solution that outperforms state-of-the-art models on standard benchmarks.
The ability to automatically identify logical fallacies has significant implications for fields such as fact-checking, misinformation detection, and argumentative reasoning. By providing a systematic way to analyze the logical validity of natural language statements, this research represents an important step forward in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of language models and improving the quality of information that is consumed and shared online.
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
šæ
FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic
Simeng Han, Hailey Schoelkopf, Yilun Zhao, Zhenting Qi, Martin Riddell, Wenfei Zhou, James Coady, David Peng, Yujie Qiao, Luke Benson, Lucy Sun, Alex Wardle-Solano, Hannah Szabo, Ekaterina Zubova, Matthew Burtell, Jonathan Fan, Yixin Liu, Brian Wong, Malcolm Sailor, Ansong Ni, Linyong Nan, Jungo Kasai, Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Kryscinski, Semih Yavuz, Ye Liu, Xi Victoria Lin, Shafiq Joty, Yingbo Zhou, Caiming Xiong, Rex Ying, Arman Cohan, Dragomir Radev
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on a variety of natural language understanding tasks. However, existing benchmarks are inadequate in measuring the complex logical reasoning capabilities of a model. We present FOLIO, a human-annotated, logically complex and diverse dataset for reasoning in natural language (NL), equipped with first-order logic (FOL) annotations. FOLIO consists of 1,430 examples (unique conclusions), each paired with one of 487 sets of premises used to deductively reason for the validity of each conclusion. The logical correctness of the premises and conclusions is ensured by their FOL annotations, which are automatically verified by an FOL inference engine. In addition to the main NL reasoning task, NL-FOL pairs in FOLIO constitute a new NL-FOL translation dataset. Our experiments on FOLIO systematically evaluate the FOL reasoning ability of supervised fine-tuning on medium-sized language models. For both NL reasoning and NL-FOL translation, we benchmark multiple state-of-the-art language models. Our results show that a subset of FOLIO presents a challenge for one of the most capable {Large Language Model (LLM)} publicly available, GPT-4.
5/20/2024
Reason from Fallacy: Enhancing Large Language Models' Logical Reasoning through Logical Fallacy Understanding
Yanda Li, Dixuan Wang, Jiaqing Liang, Guochao Jiang, Qianyu He, Yanghua Xiao, Deqing Yang
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated good performance in many reasoning tasks, but they still struggle with some complicated reasoning tasks including logical reasoning. One non-negligible reason for LLMs' suboptimal performance on logical reasoning is their overlooking of understanding logical fallacies correctly. To evaluate LLMs' capability of logical fallacy understanding (LFU), we propose five concrete tasks from three cognitive dimensions of WHAT, WHY, and HOW in this paper. Towards these LFU tasks, we have successfully constructed a new dataset LFUD based on GPT-4 accompanied by a little human effort. Our extensive experiments justify that our LFUD can be used not only to evaluate LLMs' LFU capability, but also to fine-tune LLMs to obtain significantly enhanced performance on logical reasoning.
4/9/2024
Towards Generalizable and Faithful Logic Reasoning over Natural Language via Resolution Refutation
Zhouhao Sun, Xiao Ding, Li Du, Bibo Cai, Jinglong Gao, Ting Liu, Qin Bing
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved significant performance in various natural language reasoning tasks. However, they still struggle with performing first-order logic reasoning over formal logical theories expressed in natural language. This is because the previous LLMs-based reasoning systems have the theoretical incompleteness issue. As a result, it can only address a limited set of simple reasoning problems, which significantly decreases their generalization ability. To address this issue, we propose a novel framework, named Generalizable and Faithful Reasoner (GFaiR), which introduces the paradigm of resolution refutation. Resolution refutation has the capability to solve all first-order logic reasoning problems by extending reasoning rules and employing the principle of proof by contradiction, so our system's completeness can be improved by introducing resolution refutation. Experimental results demonstrate that our system outperforms previous works by achieving state-of-the-art performances in complex scenarios while maintaining performances in simple scenarios. Besides, we observe that GFaiR is faithful to its reasoning process.
4/4/2024
A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences
Leonardo Bertolazzi, Albert Gatt, Raffaella Bernardi
0
0
The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as $textit{content effects}$, avoid answering that $textit{no conclusion follows}$, display human-like difficulties, and struggle with multi-step reasoning. We contribute to this research line by systematically investigating the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning (ICL), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on syllogistic reasoning, considering syllogisms with conclusions that support or violate world knowledge, as well as ones with multiple premises. Crucially, we go beyond the standard focus on accuracy, with an in-depth analysis of the conclusions generated by the models. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by heuristics studied in cognitive science and that both ICL and SFT improve model performance on valid inferences, although only the latter mitigates most reasoning biases without harming model consistency.
6/18/2024