CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 35Topic ModelingLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeNatural Language Processing Techniques

FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic

Open access
Han, Simeng, Schoelkopf, Hailey, Zhao, Yilun, Qi, Zhenting, Riddell, Martin, Zhou, Wenfei, Coady, James, Peng, David +27 more·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2209.00840arXiv 2209.00840
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on a variety of natural language understanding tasks. However, existing benchmarks are inadequate in measuring the complex logical reasoning capabilities of a model. We present FOLIO, a human-annotated, logically complex and diverse dataset for reasoning in natural language (NL), equipped with first-order logic (FOL) annotations. FOLIO consists of 1,430 examples (unique conclusions), each paired with one of 487 sets of premises used to deductively reason for the validity of each conclusion. The logical correctness of the premises and conclusions is ensured by their FOL annotations, which are automatically verified by an FOL inference engine. In addition to the main NL reasoning task, NL-FOL pairs in FOLIO constitute a new NL-FOL translation dataset. Our experiments on FOLIO systematically evaluate the FOL reasoning ability of supervised fine-tuning on medium-sized language models. For both NL reasoning and NL-FOL translation, we benchmark multiple state-of-the-art language models. Our results show that a subset of FOLIO presents a challenge for one of the most capable {Large Language Model (LLM)} publicly available, GPT-4.

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.2209.00840

Cites

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?

  • Unlike synthetically templated logic datasets, NLR problems have explicit statements along with implicit information that must be inferred from common sense and context.

    “Unlike synthetically templated logic datasets (Han et al., 2022;Clark et al., 2020) in which all premises are stated as short clauses, NLR problems have explicit statements along with implicit information that must be inferred from common sense and context.”

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

    The Introduction describes RuleTaker and LogicNLI as limited in natural-language variety and not written by humans using real-world knowledge; the paper’s comparison table labels them synthetic. This supports the contrast with synthetic logic datasets, but our copy does not establish that all their premises are short clauses or that NLR problems require implicit information inferred from commonsense and context. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • LINC has shown significant performance gains on the FOLIO and ProofWriter datasets compared to CoT prompting.

    “This method has shown significant performance gains on the FOLIO (Han et al., 2022) and ProofWriter (Tafjord et al., 2020) datasets compared to CoT prompting.”

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

  • Both FOLIO and ProofWriter have been shown to be challenging for off-the-shelf LLMs.

    “Our experiments use tasks from two existing datasets: FOLIO (Han et al., 2022) and ProofWriter (Tafjord et al., 2021), both of which have been shown to be challenging for off-the-shelf LLMs (Han et al., 2022;Creswell et al., 2023).”

    From LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers (2023) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2022

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 35

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. David Arps, Jan Kels, Florian Krämer, Yunus Renz, Regina Stodden, and Wiebke Petersen. 2022. HHU- plexity at text complexity DE challenge 2022. In Proceedings of the GermEval 2022 Workshop on Text Complexity Assessment of German Text, pages 27-32, Potsdam, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Sid Black, Stella Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Ben Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model. arXiv preprint. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Ma- teusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
  5. Wenhu Chen, Hanwen Zha, Zhiyu Chen, Wenhan Xiong, Hong Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2020. Hy- bridQA: A dataset of multi-hop question answering over tabular and textual data. In Findings of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1026-1036, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  6. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. · arXiv
  7. Peter Clark, Oyvind Tafjord, and Kyle Richardson. 2020. Transformers as soft reasoners over language. CoRR, abs/2002.05867. · arXiv
  8. Peter Clark, Oyvind Tafjord, and Kyle Richardson. 2021. Transformers as soft reasoners over language. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Confer- ence on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3882-3890.
  9. Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09712. · arXiv
  10. Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall. 1948. A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bul- letin, 27(1):11-28.
  11. Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K Lampinen, Stephanie CY Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Lan- guage models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07051. · arXiv
  12. Donald Davidson. 2001. 105The Logical Form of Ac- tion Sentences. In Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford University Press. · DOI
  13. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  14. David Dohan, Winnie Xu, Aitor Lewkowycz, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Yuhuai Wu, Henryk Michalewski, Rif A. Saurous, Jascha Sohl-dickstein, Kevin Murphy, and Charles Sutton. 2022. Language model cascades. arXiv preprint. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Weinan He, Canming Huang, Yongmei Liu, and Xiao- dan Zhu. 2021. WinoLogic: A zero-shot logic-based diagnostic dataset for Winograd Schema Challenge. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3779-3789, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Re- public. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  16. Akira Kawabata and Saku Sugawara. 2023. Evaluat- ing the rationale understanding of critical reason- ing in logical reading comprehension. Preprint, arXiv:2311.18353. · arXiv
  17. Mehran Kazemi, Quan Yuan, Deepti Bhatia, Najoung Kim, Xin Xu, Vaiva Imbrasaite, and Deepak Ra- machandran. 2023. Boardgameqa: A dataset for natural language reasoning with contradictory infor- mation. Preprint, arXiv:2306.07934. · arXiv
  18. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916. · arXiv
  19. Anne Lehman. 1973. Two sets of perfect syllogisms. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 14(3):425 - 429. · DOI
  20. Sarah-Jane Leslie. 2008. Generics: Cognition and Ac- quisition. The Philosophical Review, 117(1):1-47. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02336. · arXiv
  22. Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Logiqa: a challenge dataset for machine reading comprehen- sion with logical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Interna- tional Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3622-3628.
  23. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Ro{bert}a: A robustly optimized {bert} pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  24. Ansong Ni, Pengcheng Yin, Yilun Zhao, Martin Rid- dell, Troy Feng, Rui Shen, Stephen Yin, Ye Liu, Semih Yavuz, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq Joty, Yingbo Zhou, Dragomir Radev, and Arman Cohan. 2023. L2ceval: Evaluating language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2309.17446. · arXiv
  25. Tobias Nipkow, Lawrence C. Paulson, and Markus Wen- zel. 2002. Isabelle/Hol a Proof Assistant for Higher- Order Logic. Springer.
  26. Theo Olausson, Alex Gu, Ben Lipkin, Cedegao Zhang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Joshua Tenenbaum, and Roger Levy. 2023. LINC: A neurosymbolic approach for logical reasoning by combining language models with first-order logic provers. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5153-5176, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  27. OpenAI, Josh Achiam, and Others. 2023. Gpt-4 techni- cal report. Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774. · arXiv
  28. Liangming Pan, Alon Albalak, Xinyi Wang, and William Wang. 2023. Logic-LM: Empowering large language models with symbolic solvers for faithful logical reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3806-3824, Singapore. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Terence Parsons. 1990. Events in the Semantics of En- glish. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  30. Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. 2010. Artificial Intel- ligence: A Modern Approach, 3 edition. Prentice Hall.
  31. Mohammed Saeed, Naser Ahmadi, Preslav Nakov, and Paolo Papotti. 2021. RuleBERT: Teaching soft rules to pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1460-1476, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  32. Abulhair Saparov and He He. 2023. Language models can (kind of) reason: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  33. Hrituraj Singh, Milan Aggrawal, and Balaji Krishna- murthy. 2020. Exploring neural models for parsing natural language into first-order logic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06544. · arXiv
  34. Pranaydeep Singh, Luna De Bruyne, Orphée De Clercq, and Els Lefever. 2023. Misery loves complexity: Exploring linguistic complexity in the context of emotion detection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 12871-12880, Singapore. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  35. Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L. Hamilton. 2019. CLUTRR: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4506-4515, Hong Kong, China. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, and +447 Authors. 2023. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Preprint, arXiv:2206.04615. · arXiv
  37. Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615. · arXiv
  38. Hongda Sun, Weikai Xu, Wei Liu, Jian Luan, Bin Wang, Shuo Shang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. 2023. From indeterminacy to determinacy: Augmenting logical reasoning capabilities with large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2310.18659. · arXiv
  39. G. Sutcliffe. 2017. The TPTP Problem Library and Associated Infrastructure. From CNF to TH0, TPTP v6.4.0. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 59(4):483- 502.
  40. Oyvind Tafjord, Bhavana Dalvi, and Peter Clark. 2021. ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3621-3634, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A ques- tion answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  42. Alon Talmor, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, Yoav Gold- berg, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Leap-of-thought: Teaching pre-trained models to systematically rea- son over implicit knowledge. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20227-20237.
  43. Jidong Tian, Yitian Li, Wenqing Chen, Liqiang Xiao, Hao He, and Yaohui Jin. 2021. Diagnosing the first- order logical reasoning ability through LogicNLI. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3738-3747, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Re- public. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  44. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. Preprint, arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
  45. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Aman- preet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019a. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understand- ing systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32.
  46. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Aman- preet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019b. Superglue: A stick- ier benchmark for general-purpose language under- standing systems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
  47. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
  48. Jason Wei, Kelly Finn, Emma Templeton, Thalia Wheat- ley, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2021. Linguistic com- plexity loss in text-based therapy. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4450-4459, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  49. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. · arXiv
  50. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. · arXiv
  51. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christo- pher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik R Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  53. Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. arXiv preprint. · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Han, S., Schoelkopf, H., Zhao, Y., Qi, Z., Riddell, M., Zhou, W., Coady, J., Peng, D., Qiao, Y., Benson, L., Sun, L., Wardle-Solano, A., Szabo, H., Zubova, E., Burtell, M., Fan, J., Liu, Y., Wong, B., Sailor, M., Ni, A., Nan, L., Kasai, J., Yu, T., Zhang, R., Fabbri, A. R., Kryscinski, W., Yavuz, S., Liu, Y., Lin, X. V., Joty, S., Zhou, Y., Xiong, C., Ying, R., Cohan, A., & Radev, D.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Nvidia (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Salesforce (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2209.00840
arXiv
2209.00840
OpenAlex
W4294753225
Cited by
35
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
natural language reasoning, first-order logic, deductive reasoning, large language models, human-annotated dataset

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