Abstract reasoning, the ability to reason from the abstract essence of a problem, serves as a key to generalization in human reasoning. However, eliciting language models to perform reasoning with abstraction remains unexplored. This paper seeks to bridge this gap by introducing a novel structured reasoning format called Abstraction-of-Thought (AoT). The uniqueness of AoT lies in its explicit requirement for varying levels of abstraction within the reasoning process. This approach could elicit language models to first contemplate on the abstract level before incorporating concrete details, which is overlooked by the prevailing step-by-step Chain-of-Thought (CoT) method. To align models with the AoT format, we present AoT Collection, a generic finetuning dataset consisting of 348k high-quality samples with AoT reasoning processes, collected via an automated and scalable pipeline. We finetune a wide range of language models with AoT Collection and conduct extensive evaluations on 23 unseen tasks from the challenging benchmark Big-Bench Hard. Experimental results indicate that models aligned to AoT reasoning format substantially outperform those aligned to CoT in many reasoning tasks.

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.

In this study, we delve into the realm of counterfactual reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Our primary objective is to cultivate the counterfactual thought processes within LLMs and rigorously assess these processes for their validity. Specifically, we introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. To effectively evaluate a generation model’s counterfactual capabilities, we propose an innovative evaluation metric, the decomposed Self-Evaluation Score (SES) to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs instead of modeling the task as a multiple-choice problem. Analysis shows that the proposed automatic metric aligns well with human preference. Our experimental results show that while LLMs demonstrate a notable capacity for logical counterfactual thinking, there remains a discernible gap between their current abilities and human performance. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Eleanor-H/CLOMO.

Although large language models demonstrate remarkable question-answering performances, revealing the intermediate reasoning steps that the models faithfully follow remains challenging. In this paper, we propose FAME (FAithful question answering with MontE-carlo planning) to answer questions based on faithful reasoning steps. The reasoning steps are organized as a structured entailment tree, which shows how premises are used to produce intermediate conclusions that can prove the correctness of the answer. We formulate the task as a discrete decision-making problem and solve it through the interaction of a reasoning environment and a controller. The environment is modular and contains several basic task-oriented modules, while the controller proposes actions to assemble the modules. Since the search space could be large, we introduce a Monte-Carlo planning algorithm to do a look-ahead search and select actions that will eventually lead to high-quality steps. FAME achieves advanced performance on the standard benchmark. It can produce valid and faithful reasoning steps compared with large language models with a much smaller model size.

In this paper, we propose a comprehensive benchmark to investigate models’ logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Current explanation datasets often employ synthetic data with simple reasoning structures. Therefore, it cannot express more complex reasoning processes, such as the rebuttal to a reasoning step and the degree of certainty of the evidence. To this end, we propose a comprehensive logical reasoning explanation form. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components: (1) The condition of rebuttal that the reasoning node can be challenged; (2) Logical formulae that uncover the internal texture of reasoning nodes; (3) Reasoning strength indicated by degrees of certainty. The fine-grained structure conforms to the real logical reasoning scenario, better fitting the human cognitive process but, simultaneously, is more challenging for the current models. We evaluate the current best models’ performance on this new explanation form. The experimental results show that generating reasoning graphs remains a challenging task for current models, even with the help of giant pre-trained language models.

Knowing the reasoning chains from knowledge to the predicted answers can help construct an explainable question answering (QA) system. Advances on QA explanation propose to explain the answers with entailment trees composed of multiple entailment steps. While current work proposes to generate entailment trees with end-to-end generative models, the steps in the generated trees are not constrained and could be unreliable. In this paper, we propose METGEN, a Module-based Entailment Tree GENeration framework that has multiple modules and a reasoning controller. Given a question and several supporting knowledge, METGEN can iteratively generate the entailment tree by conducting single-step entailment with separate modules and selecting the reasoning flow with the controller. As each module is guided to perform a specific type of entailment reasoning, the steps generated by METGEN are more reliable and valid. Experiment results on the standard benchmark show that METGEN can outperform previous state-of-the-art models with only 9% of the parameters.