Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning

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 2311.07954 v2 pith:W7CSBWB6 submitted 2023-11-14 cs.AI cs.CL

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

Logical reasoning has been an ongoing pursuit in the field of AI. Despite significant advancements made by large language models (LLMs), they still struggle with complex logical reasoning problems. To enhance reasoning performance, one promising direction is scalable oversight, which requires LLMs to identify their own errors and then improve by themselves. Various self-verification methods have been proposed in pursuit of this goal. Nevertheless, whether existing models understand their own errors well is still under investigation. In this paper, we take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of LLMs in the context of logical reasoning, focusing on their ability to identify logical fallacies accurately. We introduce a dataset, FALLACIES, containing 232 types of reasoning fallacies categorized in a hierarchical taxonomy. By conducting exhaustive experiments on FALLACIES, we obtain comprehensive and detailed analyses of a series of models on their verification abilities. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods. Drawing from these observations, we offer suggestions for future research and practical applications of self-verification methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Policy Guided Tree Search for Enhanced LLM Reasoning

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    PGTS trains a graph-transformer policy via PPO to guide tree search over LLM reasoning steps, reporting improved accuracy and lower token use than chain-of-thought and MCTS baselines.

  2. Physics Reasoner: Knowledge-Augmented Reasoning for Solving Physics Problems with Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A knowledge-augmented framework using a physics formula set and checklists improves LLM accuracy on physics problem benchmarks.

Pith tools