Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

AR-LSAT: Investigating Analytical Reasoning of Text

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 2104.06598 v2 pith:M3P3UN2W submitted 2021-04-14 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoninganalyticalknowledgeperformancetaskanalyzechallengemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Analytical reasoning is an essential and challenging task that requires a system to analyze a scenario involving a set of particular circumstances and perform reasoning over it to make conclusions. In this paper, we study the challenge of analytical reasoning of text and introduce a new dataset consisting of questions from the Law School Admission Test from 1991 to 2016. We analyze what knowledge understanding and reasoning abilities are required to do well on this task. Furthermore, to address this reasoning challenge, we design two different baselines: (1) a Transformer-based method which leverages the state-of-the-art pre-trained language models and (2) Analytical Reasoning Machine (ARM), a logical-level reasoning framework extracting symbolic knowledge (e.g, participants, facts, logical functions) to deduce legitimate solutions. In our experiments, we find that the Transformer-based models struggle to solve this task as their performance is close to random guess and ARM achieves better performance by leveraging symbolic knowledge and interpretable reasoning steps. Results show that both methods still lag far behind human performance, which leave further space for future research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show average overconfidence moderated by a strong hard-easy effect, quantified across tasks and via the new LifeEval actuarial-probability benchmark.

  2. MIH-TCCT: Mitigating Inconsistent Hallucinations in LLMs via Event-Driven Text-Code Cyclic Training

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MIH-TCCT reduces inconsistent hallucinations by cyclically training LLMs to translate event-based text into structured code and back, without task-specific fine-tuning.

  3. Large Language Models Meet Symbolic Provers for Logical Reasoning Evaluation

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ProverGen combines LLM-generated text with Prover9-verified reasoning trees to produce ProverQA, a first-order logic benchmark where advanced LLMs fall below 60% accuracy on the hard split.

  4. Revisiting Test-Time Scaling: A Survey and a Diversity-Aware Method for Efficient Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ADAPT, a diversity-aware prefix fine-tuning method, improves best-of-N sampling efficiency for a 1.5B reasoning model, reaching 80% accuracy at N=32 versus N=256 for the baseline.

Pith tools