Assessing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Encoder-Only Transformer Models

Paulo Pirozelli, Marcos M. José, Paulo de Tarso P. Filho, Anarosa A. F. Brandão, Fabio G. Cozman
12/18/2023
cs.CLcs.AI

No official code found. Best implementation: paulopirozelli/logicalreasoning (3 stars, last commit 2023-12-22).

Abstract

Logical reasoning is central to complex human activities, such as thinking, debating, and planning; it is also a central component of many AI systems as well. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which encoder-only transformer language models (LMs) can reason according to logical rules. We ask whether those LMs can deduce theorems in propositional calculus and first-order logic; if their relative success in these problems reflects general logical capabilities; and which layers contribute the most to the task. First, we show for several encoder-only LMs that they can be trained, to a reasonable degree, to determine logical validity on various datasets. Next, by cross-probing fine-tuned models on these datasets, we show that LMs have difficulty in transferring their putative logical reasoning ability, which suggests that they may have learned dataset-specific features, instead of a general capability. Finally, we conduct a layerwise probing experiment, which shows that the hypothesis classification task is mostly solved through higher layers.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

31PythonDec 19, 20232 years ago

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{pirozelli2023assessing,
  title  = {Assessing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Encoder-Only Transformer Models},
  author = {Paulo Pirozelli and Marcos M. José and Paulo de Tarso P. Filho and Anarosa A. F. Brandão and Fabio G. Cozman},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2312.11720},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11720v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2312.11720.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2312.11720)

Discussion