Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.00757 v3 pith:PAR64MGJ submitted 2024-01-01 cs.SE cs.AIcs.CLcs.LO

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.CLcs.LO
keywords reasoningllmslogicallogicaskermodelsabilitycapabilitiescode
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GPT-4. Despite LLMs' prowess in tasks like writing assistance, code generation, and machine translation, assessing their ability to reason has been challenging. Traditional evaluations often prioritize accuracy on downstream tasks over direct assessments of reasoning processes. LogicAsker addresses this gap by employing a set of atomic reasoning skills grounded in propositional and predicate logic to systematically examine and improve the reasoning prowess of LLMs. Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29\% to 90\% across different models. Moreover, we leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5\%. To our knowledge, this is the first effort to utilize test case outcomes to effectively refine LLMs' formal reasoning capabilities. We make our code, data, and results publicly available (https://github.com/yxwan123/LogicAsker) to facilitate further research and replication of our findings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unveiling Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: Reality or Mirage?

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs perform much worse on causal questions built from post-cutoff news articles, suggesting their apparent causal skill is mostly memorization, and a general-knowledge prompt method only partly closes the gap.

  2. Propositional Logic for Probing Generalization in Neural Networks

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Standard neural architectures generalize to unseen variable and operator combinations, but systematically fail when negation is applied to an operator that was hidden during training.

  3. StepProof: Step-by-step verification of natural language mathematical proofs

    cs.LO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Decomposing natural-language proofs into sentence-level formal subproofs improves autoformalization success rates and efficiency compared with whole-proof formalization.

Pith tools