Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Leveraging LLMs for Hypothetical Deduction in Logical Inference: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach

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 2410.21779 v1 pith:LA53TOL7 submitted 2024-10-29 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoninglogicallinallmsabilityacrossapproachexternal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable potential across a wide array of reasoning tasks, including logical reasoning. Although massive efforts have been made to empower the logical reasoning ability of LLMs via external logical symbolic solvers, crucial challenges of the poor generalization ability to questions with different features and inevitable question information loss of symbolic solver-driven approaches remain unresolved. To mitigate these issues, we introduce LINA, a LLM-driven neuro-symbolic approach for faithful logical reasoning. By enabling an LLM to autonomously perform the transition from propositional logic extraction to sophisticated logical reasoning, LINA not only bolsters the resilience of the reasoning process but also eliminates the dependency on external solvers. Additionally, through its adoption of a hypothetical-deductive reasoning paradigm, LINA effectively circumvents the expansive search space challenge that plagues traditional forward reasoning methods. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that LINA substantially outperforms both established propositional logic frameworks and conventional prompting techniques across a spectrum of five logical reasoning tasks. Specifically, LINA achieves an improvement of 24.34% over LINC on the FOLIO dataset, while also surpassing prompting strategies like CoT and CoT-SC by up to 24.02%. Our code is available at https://github.com/wufeiwuwoshihua/nshy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. How does Chain of Thought Think? Mechanistic Interpretability of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Sparse Autoencoding

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper reports that chain-of-thought features extracted by sparse autoencoders and transferred through activation patching improve answer confidence in Pythia-2.8B but not in Pythia-70M, implying a scale threshold ...

Pith tools