PreprintCited by 61Topic ModelingLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeNatural Language Processing Techniques

On the Paradox of Learning to Reason from Data

Open access
Zhang, Honghua, Li, Liunian Harold, Meng, Tao, Chang, Kai-Wei, Broeck, Guy Van den·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Logical reasoning is needed in a wide range of NLP tasks. Can a BERT model be trained end-to-end to solve logical reasoning problems presented in natural language? We attempt to answer this question in a confined problem space where there exists a set of parameters that perfectly simulates logical reasoning. We make observations that seem to contradict each other: BERT attains near-perfect accuracy on in-distribution test examples while failing to generalize to other data distributions over the exact same problem space. Our study provides an explanation for this paradox: instead of learning to emulate the correct reasoning function, BERT has in fact learned statistical features that inherently exist in logical reasoning problems. We also show that it is infeasible to jointly remove statistical features from data, illustrating the difficulty of learning to reason in general. Our result naturally extends to other neural models and unveils the fundamental difference between learning to reason and learning to achieve high performance on NLP benchmarks using statistical features.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2205.11502

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The statistical nature of LLM training means they often fail to generalize appropriately to problems outside their training distribution.

    “Moreover, the statistical nature of LLM training means they often fail to generalize appropriately to problems outside their training distribution (Zhang et al., 2022).”

    From Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2022

    The Discussion and Section 4 report that models trained on one distribution of logical-reasoning problems fail on another because they rely on statistical features rather than the correct reasoning function. The study chiefly tests BERT in a confined problem space, with an extension to T5; it does not establish that LLMs generally or often fail on out-of-distribution problems. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Nicolas Gontier, Koustuv Sinha, Siva Reddy, and Chris Pal. Measuring systematic gen- eralization in neural proof generation with transform- ers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:22231-22242, 2020.
  2. Christopher Hahn, Frederik Schmitt, Jens U. Kreber, Markus Norman Rabe, and Bernd Finkbeiner. Teaching temporal logics to neural networks. In ICLR. OpenReview.net, 2021.
  3. Khardon and Roth, 1997] Roni Khardon and Dan Roth. Learning to reason. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 44(5):697-725, 1997.
  4. Lample and Charton, 2020] Guillaume Lample and Franc ¸ois Charton. Deep learning for symbolic mathemat- ics. In ICLR. OpenReview.net, 2020.
  5. Alon Talmor, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. Leap-of- thought: Teaching pre-trained models to systematically reason over implicit knowledge. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 33:20227-20237, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, H., Li, L. H., Meng, T., Chang, K.-W., & Broeck, G. V. D.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
3365-3373
OpenAlex
W4385767671
Cited by
58
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1956441, 1943641, 1837129)
  • Cisco Systems
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Samsung
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
logical reasoning, BERT, statistical features, generalization, natural language reasoning, T5, benchmark performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review