Abstract:Logical reasoning consistently plays a fundamental and significant role in the domains of knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a noteworthy innovation in natural language processing (NLP). However, the question of whether LLMs can effectively address the task of logical reasoning, which requires gradual cognitive inference similar to human intelligence, remains unanswered. To this end, we aim to bridge this gap and provide comprehensive evaluations in this paper. Firstly, to offer systematic evaluations, we select fifteen typical logical reasoning datasets and organize them into deductive, inductive, abductive and mixed-form reasoning settings. Considering the comprehensiveness of evaluations, we include 3 early-era representative LLMs and 4 trending LLMs. Secondly, different from previous evaluations relying only on simple metrics (e.g., \emph{accuracy}), we propose fine-level evaluations in objective and subjective manners, covering both answers and explanations, including \emph{answer correctness}, \emph{explain correctness}, \emph{explain completeness} and \emph{explain redundancy}. Additionally, to uncover the logical flaws of LLMs, problematic cases will be attributed to five error types from two dimensions, i.e., \emph{evidence selection process} and \emph{reasoning process}. Thirdly, to avoid the influences of knowledge bias and concentrate purely on benchmarking the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a new dataset with neutral content. Based on the in-depth evaluations, this paper finally forms a general evaluation scheme of logical reasoning capability from six dimensions (i.e., \emph{Correct}, \emph{Rigorous}, \emph{Self-aware}, \emph{Active}, \emph{Oriented} and \emph{No hallucination}). It reflects the pros and cons of LLMs and gives guiding directions for future works.

Exploring the Limitations of Large Language Models in Compositional Relation Reasoning

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

Do Large Language Models Have Compositional Ability? An Investigation into Limitations and Scalability

Exploring the Compositional Deficiency of Large Language Models in Mathematical Reasoning

Exploring the Compositional Deficiency of Large Language Models in Mathematical Reasoning Through Trap Problems

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

CLR-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models in College-level Reasoning

Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey

Case Study: Testing Model Capabilities in Some Reasoning Tasks

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

Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasoners

Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Words

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

Exploring Group and Symmetry Principles in Large Language Models

Can Large Language Models Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT

Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models: In-Depth Analysis on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus

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

Can Large Language Models Reason about the Region Connection Calculus?

Towards Robust Knowledge Representations in Multilingual LLMs for Equivalence and Inheritance based Consistent Reasoning

An Investigation of LLMs' Inefficacy in Understanding Converse Relations

Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Geometric Perspective