Abstract:Over the past few years, the abilities of large language models (LLMs) have received extensive attention, which have performed exceptionally well in complicated scenarios such as logical reasoning and symbolic inference. A significant factor contributing to this progress is the benefit of in-context learning and few-shot prompting. However, the reasons behind the success of such models using contextual reasoning have not been fully explored. Do LLMs have understand logical rules to draw inferences, or do they ``guess'' the answers by learning a type of probabilistic mapping through context? This paper investigates the reasoning capabilities of LLMs on two logical reasoning datasets by using counterfactual methods to replace context text and modify logical concepts. Based on our analysis, it is found that LLMs do not truly understand logical rules; rather, in-context learning has simply enhanced the likelihood of these models arriving at the correct answers. If one alters certain words in the context text or changes the concepts of logical terms, the outputs of LLMs can be significantly disrupted, leading to counter-intuitive responses. This work provides critical insights into the limitations of LLMs, underscoring the need for more robust mechanisms to ensure reliable logical reasoning in LLMs.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper aims to explore the performance of large language models (LLMs) in logical reasoning tasks, specifically investigating whether they truly understand logical rules or merely "guess" answers through contextual learning and few-shot prompting. The authors pose the following core questions: 1. **Do LLMs truly understand logical rules?** - Large language models perform well in complex scenarios such as logical reasoning and symbolic inference. Their success is largely attributed to contextual learning and few-shot prompting. However, do these models genuinely understand logical rules, or are they just guessing answers through probabilistic mapping? 2. **What is the impact of contextual learning on LLMs?** - How does contextual learning enhance these models' performance in logical reasoning tasks? If certain parts of the context are modified or removed, how would the model's performance be affected? 3. **How deep is the LLMs' understanding of logical concepts?** - By replacing logical concepts and modifying logical definitions, test whether LLMs can correctly understand and apply new logical rules. ### Research Methods To answer the above questions, the authors designed a series of experiments, with the main methods including: 1. **Defining and Segmenting Text Components**: - The text in contextual examples is divided into three parts: text, reasoning chain, and pattern. Additionally, the definitions of logical symbols are included as supplementary text. 2. **Replacement and Modification Operations**: - **Replacement**: Replace the current content with other example content within the same domain (in-domain replacement) or unrelated text (out-of-domain replacement). This operation helps observe which parts of the data are more important for establishing logical reasoning in large models and explores the model's robustness to interference and its ability to understand patterns. - **Modification**: Modify the definitions of logical concepts, such as swapping the definitions of AND and OR. If the model primarily learns through probabilistic associations between tokens, the probability of correctly swapping AND and OR should be low. But if the model truly understands logical symbols and their rules, it should accurately reflect this new understanding in its output. ### Experimental Results 1. **Impact of Contextual Examples on Performance**: - Using Chain of Thought (COT) contextual examples significantly improved the performance of large-scale models in logical reasoning tasks. Models of different parameter scales (from 7 billion to 200 billion parameters) showed significant improvements in the clarity, normativity, and accuracy of generated responses. 2. **Model Robustness to Interference**: - Larger-scale models (70B and 200B parameters) exhibited strong robustness to interference elements in contextual examples (such as extraneous text, reasoning chains, and patterns). When different parts of the contextual examples were replaced with in-domain or out-of-domain content, these models still maintained the accuracy of their outputs. In contrast, smaller-scale models (7B and 13B parameters) showed significant performance drops when standard contextual examples were not used. 3. **Model Understanding of Logical Principles**: - Large-scale models did not truly understand logical principles but relied on probabilistic associations between input examples and output. Attempts to modify the definitions of logical symbols and guide the model to adjust its output showed low success rates across all model scales. Even using prompts or contextual guidance to improve success rates had limited effects. ### Conclusion Through extensive analysis, the authors draw the following main conclusions: - **Chain of Thought examples significantly enhance the performance of large-scale models in logical reasoning tasks**. - **Large-scale models exhibit strong robustness to interference in contextual examples**. - **Large-scale models do not truly understand logical principles but rely on probabilistic associations**. This work provides key insights into the limitations of LLMs' logical reasoning capabilities, highlighting the need for more robust mechanisms to ensure the reliability of LLMs in logical reasoning tasks.

Do Large Language Models Understand Logic or Just Mimick Context?

Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Large Language Models for Deductive Reasoning.

Large Language Models Are In-Context Semantic Reasoners Rather Than Symbolic Reasoners

Are Large Language Models Really Good Logical Reasoners? A Comprehensive Evaluation and Beyond

Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Language Models Can Be Logical Solvers

CLR-Fact: Evaluating the Complex Logical Reasoning Capability of Large Language Models over Factual Knowledge

Disentangling Logic: The Role of Context in Large Language Model Reasoning Capabilities

LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We?

Logic-of-Thought: Injecting Logic into Contexts for Full Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large Language Models can Learn Rules

Reason from Fallacy: Enhancing Large Language Models' Logical Reasoning through Logical Fallacy Understanding

Enhancing Logical Reasoning in Large Language Models to Facilitate Legal Applications

Can Large Language Models Act as Symbolic Reasoners?

Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning

Rulebreakers Challenge: Revealing a Blind Spot in Large Language Models' Reasoning with Formal Logic

Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs

Large Language Models are few(1)-shot Table Reasoners

LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed

Reasoning or a Semblance of it? A Diagnostic Study of Transitive Reasoning in LLMs

Coupling Large Language Models with Logic Programming for Robust and General Reasoning from Text