Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

LOGICPO: Efficient Translation of NL-based Logical Problems to FOL using LLMs and Preference Optimization

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 2506.18383 v1 pith:XT3THRUL submitted 2025-06-23 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords logicaloptimizationllmspreferencereasoningabilitydatasetframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Logical reasoning is a key task for artificial intelligence due to it's role in major downstream tasks such as Question Answering, Summarization. Recent methods in improving the reasoning ability of LLMs fall short in correctly converting a natural language reasoning problem to an equivalent logical formulation, which hinders the framework's overall ability to reason. Towards this, we propose to use finetuning on a preference optimization dataset to learn to parse and represent a natural language problem as a whole to a consistent logical program by 1) introducing a new supervised and preference optimization dataset LogicPO, and 2) adopting popular techniques such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Kahneman-Tversky optimization (KTO) to finetune open-source LLMs. Our best model with Phi-3.5 consistently outperforms GPT-3.5-turbo's (8-shot) by producing 10% more logically correct and with 14% less syntax errors. Through the framework and our improved evaluation metrics, we offer a promising direction in improving the logical reasoning of LLMs by better representing them in their logical formulations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fixing FOLIO and MALLS: Verified Annotations and an LLM-assisted Framework to Focus Human Relabeling

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Audit finds 36-39% incorrect FOL labels in FOLIO and MALLS; corrections raise LLM accuracy 9-22 points and an LLM-guided review framework achieves 90% dataset quality after checking fewer than 24% of examples.

Pith tools