Solving grid puzzles involves a significant amount of logical reasoning. Hence, it is a good domain to evaluate reasoning capability of a model which can then guide us to improve the reasoning ability of models. However, most existing works evaluate only the final predicted answer of a puzzle, without delving into an in-depth analysis of the LLMs’ reasoning chains (such as where they falter) or providing any finer metrics to evaluate them. Since LLMs may rely on simple heuristics or artifacts to predict the final answer, it is crucial to evaluate the generated reasoning chain beyond overall correctness measures, for accurately evaluating the reasoning abilities of LLMs. To this end, we first develop GridPuzzle, an evaluation dataset comprising of 274 grid-based puzzles with different complexities. Second, we propose a new error taxonomy derived from manual analysis of reasoning chains from LLMs including GPT-4, Claude-3, Gemini, Mistral, and Llama-2. Then, we develop a LLM-based framework for large-scale subjective evaluation (i.e., identifying errors) and an objective metric, PuzzleEval, to evaluate the correctness of reasoning chains. Evaluating reasoning chains from LLMs leads to several interesting findings. We further show that existing prompting methods used for enhancing models’ reasoning abilities do not improve performance on GridPuzzle. This highlights the importance of understanding fine-grained errors and presents a challenge for future research to enhance LLMs’ puzzle-solving abilities by developing methods that address these errors.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to exhibit remarkable performance in natural language understanding tasks, there is a crucial need to measure their ability for human-like multi-step logical reasoning. Existing logical reasoning evaluation benchmarks often focus primarily on simplistic single-step or multi-step reasoning with a limited set of inference rules. Furthermore, the lack of datasets for evaluating non-monotonic reasoning represents a crucial gap since it aligns more closely with human-like reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose Multi-LogiEval, a comprehensive evaluation dataset encompassing multi-step logical reasoning with various inference rules and depths. Multi-LogiEval covers three logic types — propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic consisting of more than 30 inference rules and more than 60 of their combinations with various depths. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct evaluations on a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini-Pro, Orca, and Mistral, employing a zero-shot chain-of-thought. Experimental results show that there is a significant drop in the performance of LLMs as the reasoning steps/depth increases (average accuracy of ~68% at depth-1 to ~43% at depth-5). We further conduct a thorough investigation of reasoning chains generated by LLMs which reveals several important findings. We believe that Multi-LogiEval facilitates future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs.

Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really “reason” over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied. However, the crucial skill pertaining to ‘logical reasoning’ has remained underexplored. Existing work investigating this reasoning ability of LLMs has focused only on a couple of inference rules (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) of propositional and first-order logic. Addressing the above limitation, we comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of LLMs on 25 different reasoning patterns spanning over propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logics. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce LogicBench, a natural language question-answering dataset focusing on the use of a single inference rule. We conduct detailed analysis with a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama-2, and Mistral using chain-of-thought prompting. Experimental results show that existing LLMs do not fare well on LogicBench; especially, they struggle with instances involving complex reasoning and negations. Furthermore, they sometimes tend to prioritize parametric knowledge over contextual information and overlook the correct reasoning chain. We believe that our work and findings facilitate future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs.

Recently Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3, ChatGPT, and FLAN have led to impressive progress in Natural Language Inference (NLI) tasks. However, these models may rely on simple heuristics or artifacts in the evaluation data to achieve their high performance, which suggests that they still suffer from logical inconsistency. To assess the logical consistency of these models, we propose a LogicAttack, a method to attack NLI models using diverse logical forms of premise and hypothesis, providing a more robust evaluation of their performance. Our approach leverages a range of inference rules from propositional logic, such as Modus Tollens and Bidirectional Dilemma, to generate effective adversarial attacks and identify common vulnerabilities across multiple NLI models. We achieve an average ~53% Attack Success Rate (ASR) across multiple logic-based attacks. Moreover, we demonstrate that incorporating generated attack samples into training enhances the logical reasoning ability of the target model and decreases its vulnerability to logic-based attacks. Data and source code are available at https://github.com/msantoshmadhav/LogicAttack.